Sound Quality or Convenience?

funny enough... i just went through this... got rid of my naim cd player and external power supply (hi cap) for a regular transport and Derek Shek non over sampling DAC (shigaraki clone). i liked it better. then got a squeezebox as a transport and liked that better (using a mac powerbook as the server (yes, it does affect sound quality a touch) and a canare digiflux gold cable. the convenience is fantastic on the squeezebox plus (for me) i liked the combo far better than my naim cdp / hicap combo. amps have gotten simpler over the years too. went from naim power/pre/powersupply to a naim integrated to an almarro 205a 5 watt integrated.

i love the almarro. changed the tubes to GE 5751 from the 60s and the thing is sick. oddly, using the naim speaker cable between that and my fostex single drivers was the best for me. punchier and almost as fast as naim! and FAR more musical and organic... all with squeezeboxed front end. analog got simplified too!... Nottingham interspace/interspace arm is sitting unused while a linn axis / akito 2b / shure m95xe cartridge are in use... fantastic.

i guess simpler is better for me. less weird hi fi fabrications (like a notice when i listen to spectral or other gear that sounds like a hologram)... and more harmonic content and meat. my next purchase will be a refurbished Scott 222 from the 60s. should be good stuff.

Kck, no I really had no idea what SQ translated. So sound quality is pushed abit aside when considering a speaker for perhaps looks, a super remote, fancy face plate, big bass in a ss amp, cool looking speaker, 'really hip looking", I guess there are other perks that some here are influenced in their decision. But not me. Not at all.
I researched every amp i could find before deciding on the Jadis Orch reference, all I could afford at $2100. I looked at all amps web pages and read comments. Yep jadis was the amp for me, and paid off. In spite of the fact that jadis was not, still not, a very welcomed topic for discussion. I guess they have their reasons. It could not be any other amp, Jadis is MY amp. At that time. Now things have changed abit, there's anew kid on the block, and she has my undivided attention.
Speakers, once agin, hours of research, and did experiement with a DIYer i met on madisound to build me a 3 way, cost $2300. What a bomb from rick Craig. A total dud. But i did find out through that dud, the Seas w22 midwoofer was the driver for me. saved a few 4's, bought the seas' kit, Thor. Bingo, hit the jackpot. Search is over til death do we part.
cdp, well I knew I was deeply in love with tubes, say a certain lab that I love, and bingo, another winner.
Sorry I don't go for bells, whistles, no tricks no thrills, I look for the 'real deal". straightup, and I avoid all hype like the frickin plague.
Worked for me, each has to find his own way to musical nirvana. And btw, money won't get you there sometimes. You might have $100,000 to spend and still miss the mark.At least to my ears you did.
Nice Day
Paul

"looks, a super remote, fancy face plate, big bass in a ss amp, cool looking speaker, 'really hip looking"

Bartokfan, well, maybe. But, and no offense meant at all, your post was a little hard to follow and your examples are a little more, dare I say shallow, than real conveniences, such as:

* remote vs no remote (super not an issue)
* smaller, more portable (for setup) speaker (vs cool looking, not really a 'convenience')
* more inputs for all your sources than one or two.

NOTE that what is a convenience issue to me may not be such to you and vice-versa. You may hate to bias an amp while I think such a labor of love, undertaken 3 times a year, is no problem. Just an example... one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

To me looks, while nice to have such as match my tastes, are not dealmakers and very rarely dealbreakers if other things are in place. I once owned a preamp that was so fugly even its mother didn't love it. I put up with it 'cause it sounded nice. When it started to demand that I regularly open it up to tweak the internal pots for balance is when I took it for a long drive in the woods and left it there.

Dear Readers: The poll is so far running heavily in favor of convenience, and the count is suspended unless a whole bunch of SQers chime in.

I find myself more interested in the Investment-SQ continuum than the Convenience-SQ continuum, insofar as I'm on a quest to find less expensive components with SQ that I can accept as suitable sacrifice for their lower cost.

However, this thread is about convenience vs. sound quality, so that's where I'll focus. In my opinion, the question of convenience vs. SQ depends on the component being discussed, so I'll take them one at a time.

I prefer shiny silver disks to black vinyl discs. I loved the sound of my vinyl, but I also love the sound of shiny discs. However, I prefer the ease of use of CD/DVD-A/SACD over records. I don't believe shiny discs sacrifice sound quality over vinyl, so the comparison here is a wash. In this area, convenience wins over SQ.

Regarding loudspeakers...I own fairly heavy and cumbersome full-range, floorstanding loudspeakers. I much prefer their sound to monitors, so in this instance if one considers mobility elemental to convenience, then SQ (my opinion of SQ), wins over convenience.

Amp and preamps. I own separates and tubes, and my preamp does not have a remote. Clearly, convenience is not high on my list of priorities, and SQ wins over convenience in the area of amplification.

The final tally: SQ-2, Convenience-1.

Sound Quality is more important to me than convenience.

Convenience at the source - a HD-based system with a fantastic interface and, to my ear, as-good-as-or-better sound than from a CD player.

For the rest of the system, SQ, as the system requires dominating a whole room.