2. misc-audio
  3. 136121-109363

What Matters and What is Nonsense

I’ve been an audiophile for approximately 50 years. In my college days, I used to hang around the factory of a very well regarded speaker manufacturer where I learned a lot from the owners. When I started with audio it was a technical hobby. You were expected to know something about electronics and acoustics. Listening was important, but understanding why something sounded good or not so good was just as important. No one in 1968 would have known what you were talking about if you said you had tweaked your system and it sounded so much better. But if you talked about constant power output with frequency, or pleasing second-order harmonic distortion versus jarring odd-order harmonics in amplification, you were part of the tribe.

Starting in the 1980s, a lot of pseudo scientific nonsense started appearing. Power cords were important. One meter interconnects made a big difference. Using a green magic marker on the edge of a CD was amazing. Putting isolation dampers under a CD transport lifted the veil on the music. Ugh. This stuff still make my eyes roll, even after all these years.

So I have decided to impart years and years of hard won knowledge to today’s hobbists who might be interested in reality. This is my list of the steps in the audio reproduction chain, and the relative importance of each step. My ranking of relative importance includes a big dose of cost/benefit ratio. At this point in the evolution of audio, I am assuming digital recording and reproduction.

Item / Importance to the sound on a scale of 1-10 / Cost benefit ratio

  • The room the recording was made in / 8 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The microphones and setup used in the recording / 8 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The equalization and mixing of the recording / 10 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The technology used for the recording (analog, digital, sample rate, etc.) / 5 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The format of the consumer recording (vinyl, CD, DSD, etc.) 44.1 - 16 really is good enough / 3 / moderate CB ratio
  • The playback device i.e. cartridge or DAC / 5 / can be a horribe CB ratio - do this almost last
  • The electronics - preamp and amp / 4 / the amount of money wasted on $5,000 preamps and amps is amazing.
  • Low leve interconnects / 2 / save your money, folks
  • Speaker cables / 3 / another place to save your money
  • Speakers / 10 / very very high cost to benefit ratio. Spend your money here.
  • Listening room / 9 / an excellent place to put your money. DSPs have revolutionized audio reproduction
In summary, buy the best speakers you can afford, and invest in something like Dirac Live or learn how to use REW and buy a MiniDSP HD to implement the filters. Almost everything else is a gross waste of money.
128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xphomchick
jareko
5 posts
 
I agree as regards to the first couple things on the list, that we have no influence on. I agree that 16/44.1 is format good enough and realization is the more important. But I do not fully agree that speakers are the most important factor and the rest is far less important.

What I have learned in my 20+ years being audiophile and setting up 100+ systems, is that the system sounds as good as its weakest component. What is the system that makes the sound? The system is:
1. The room and its acoustics, which produces about 85% of the sound coming to your ears,
2. Set of components of the electronics.

I have seen systems consisting of fantastic electronics worth 250k US$ that played like crap because of bad room or bad room acoustics. But if your room is almost perfect and it has good acoustics, then everything matters.

Yes - the speakers matter very much as well as anything else in the system, but I have heard speakers for 5k (retail) playing with electronics for 200k (retail) in the room treated properly, producing amazing sound, one of the best I have heard. Does it mean that speakers are less important than the rest – no, it does not. What I wanted to say, is that everything matters, each system is different, and the only way to improve the system is to experiment and try to find the weakest component and improve it – than the whole system will improve.

And this (experimenting) is what audiophiles love the most, I think.

czarivey
4,494 posts
 
I would simply and blindly differentiate audiophile industry as pre and after 90's. After 90's comes a load of nonsense into the game vs. pre 90's.

playmore
15 posts
 
+1 Jareko
The implication is that some speakers can sound way above price point (for certain qualities especially) when the room  and electronics are ideal.
My Alon Trio set up in a good room went from good to great when I replaced amp BK202 with mid period sold state McIntosh fully recapped.
Pre was cj PV8 mod.. Rotel to Cambridge CD quite audible improvement.
Modded Thorens TT good. Revamped Sota Saphire with Alphason tonearm, 40 bucks at an auction sale, priceless. I did have to adapt a PS and build a new suction device for the Sota and buy a $400 cartridge. But hey thats why it's a hobby.
CZ, it is true about post 90's nonsense, but also some very real tech advancements. I suspect in a few years SOME brand new $500 amp will sound better than a modded recapped 80 lb classic monster made by...anybody. Well, you know, in a double blind test...  :  )
fleschler
766 posts
 
Right on.  I have a $100,000 system with only Legacy Focus (original) speakers which sell for $2,500 used.  It sounds great, better than 90% of audio show rooms (well maybe higher than that).   However, it required use of Synergistic Research HFT room treatment system and two pairs of Hallographs which together cost more than $5,000 to tame the room's slap echo and focus the soundstage (while opening the seating area to five people across).  The only audio show room that completely blew away my system and any other I've heard was the Kronos/VAC/Von Schwiekert/Mastersounds $1.4 million room, touted by every reviewer as the ultimate in music reproduction fidelity (and fun).
Here's a secret-The Pioneer DV-05 DVD player with dual laser pick-up.  Modding it with six big capacitors and a high end A/C cable transforms it into a fantastic CD player.  All for under $200 and equal to my EAR Acute which is $6K.  I own both, with the Pioneer in the living room system (see Oregonpapa's Pioneer player which replaced his Audio Research $10k player when the latter failed).  
What I am saying is that one can build a superb system on the cheap and that the room acoustics are at least 50% (I wouldn't say 85% as above) of the sound quality.


fleschler
766 posts
 
I posted this on another forum but it's relevant here too. 

There is a problem with HEA. That is summarized in today's article from Enjoy the Music: Come Admire My Hi-Fi Jewelry Roger Skoff writes about what things cost, and why.  This essay delivers an important message about many HEA manufacturers (and their clients). The equipment must appeal to the eye/visually or else it won't sell, regardless of audio quality according to many HEA manufacturers.  
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0618/HiFi_Jewelry.htm  This is probably why there were so many new (and differently conceived) turntables at the recent Munich audio show. Just check out Michael Fremer's AnalogPlanet.com site for several hours of exploration of the new LP spinners. For some, looks mean almost nothing. For others (and generally very expensive) the visuals are striking.  
More to discover