PDA

View Full Version : Source First?Active Adams and Harbeth say no



SteveW
19-05-2012, 18:14
Well...its been a journey, but I have eventually reached the conclusion that the better the loudspeaker, the better the sound.
The old Linn mantra of source first was always very seductive..and sure it has its merits. And kept me happy enough for many years.
However, having gone down the route of Harbeth P3ESR's with a Lyngdorf digital amp has made me very very happy, no matter what source I threw at it, my Ikemi, the Kenwood 750 that overthrew an LP12, iTunes over aiport or even a docked ipod.
And then I listened to Hamish's sublime Active Adam's. Just wonderful fronted by a Linn Majik DS, but great sounding with Spotify. Seriously great.

Tim
19-05-2012, 19:14
I would tend to agree with you and I think I read an article by Paul Messenger, who states the same. If I recall correctly he reckoned you should spend most of your budget on the speakers.

DSJR
19-05-2012, 19:38
With VINYL sources, the average turntable out there is so badly set up and sited the source-first mantra is mandatory and very easily proven! This isn't my Linn training speaking either as turntables, then arms, cartridges and lastly the phono stages all make a difference to quality of sound, in that order usually.

HOWEVER

With digital sources as good as they mostly are these days, even a less exalted DAC can perform well and in that case, the speakers will generate by far the most distortion (they all do, even Harbeths and Alan Shaw, gawd bless him, fully admits that) and can be the final arbiter on the resulting sound "quality."

jazzpiano
19-05-2012, 20:08
Hello,

Just my perception mostly based on the past, but when I read the great UK hi-fi mags of the 70s & 80s, I got the sense that they had the right idea, give a lot of thought to source as in if you mess the signal up downstream, you can't fix it later. Makes sense to me, still does. But, I think it got skewed vis-a-vis proportionality. I think the speakers make the biggest difference to musical enjoyment proportionally. So, you still want to take great care with tt compnentry, set-up - just don't stick a Goldmund with a pair of pc speakers.

Best,
Barry

DSJR
19-05-2012, 20:29
I used a Krell FPB300 with some little Denon SCM's once and they sounded incredible :)

Way back and either before CD came along or before CD got the early gripes eliminated, the source really was all important because a better source improved the sound out of all recognition. Little cheapy speakers such as Wharfedale Diamonds were so good as well, that improvements upstream were clearly reproduced so it made sense to get the front end as good as you possibly could make it, the speakers governing the tonal balance of the sonics primarily.

I feel that today, as I said above, digital sources are pretty darned good and are strictly limited by the recording/production/mastering rather than any obvious shortcomings in them per se. I'm not in the sligtest discounting audible differences in units, but I think the minimum standard these days is pretty darned good on the whole and the limitations are more with the speakers and the way they react in the room.

Chops
19-05-2012, 22:20
I feel that today, as I said above, digital sources are pretty darned good and are strictly limited by the recording/production/mastering rather than any obvious shortcomings in them per se. I'm not in the sligtest discounting audible differences in units, but I think the minimum standard these days is pretty darned good on the whole and the limitations are more with the speakers and the way they react in the room.

+1

I take the view that digital sources and amps are more accurate than speakers (ok, I'm sticking my neck out here a bit and many will not agree). So I put my money where my mouth is and spent a good bit on my speakers vs source to try to redress that perceived imbalance. :rolleyes:

Chris

Macca
19-05-2012, 22:34
If I had to do it all again or advise somemone this is what I would say:

1) Evaluate your room
2) Choose some speakers that will suit the room
3) Choose an amp(s) that will drive the speakers comfortably
4) Now you can worry about the source(s). Try as many as you can.

bobbasrah
20-05-2012, 07:17
With VINYL sources, the average turntable out there is so badly set up and sited the source-first mantra is mandatory and very easily proven! This isn't my Linn training speaking either as turntables, then arms, cartridges and lastly the phono stages all make a difference to quality of sound, in that order usually.

HOWEVER

With digital sources as good as they mostly are these days, even a less exalted DAC can perform well and in that case, the speakers will generate by far the most distortion (they all do, even Harbeths and Alan Shaw, gawd bless him, fully admits that) and can be the final arbiter on the resulting sound "quality."


+2

The quality of DACs these days is quite superb for relatively modest outlays, whether commercial or DIY routes are chosen, and quality speakers can still be sourced/built.
To attain the same standard for quality vinyl still requires considerably greater investment and care, which is where the oft quoted notions of balanced investment originate, the GIGO principle.
With digital, IMHO, the source is no longer the bottleneck it was...

jandl100
20-05-2012, 07:50
With VINYL sources, the average turntable out there is so badly set up and sited the source-first mantra is mandatory and very easily proven!

Werll, all you're saying there, Dave, is that you need to set your tt up properly.
Good advice, that man. :thumbsup:

But I don't think that supports your source-first philosophy at all! :nono: :eyebrows:
You could make similar claims for speaker positioning - screw that up and you are well and truly stuffed. So by your logic, speakers-first is the way to go.

Anyway, I've heard and owned relatively budget tt's which - when decently set up ;) - sound significantly better in many ways than digital front ends costing quite a lot more.

.
... I think there is a strong argument that a synergistically good system where everything is well set up and works well together is the most important thing of all. :)

YNWaN
20-05-2012, 08:02
Speakers first is an inherently flawed premise. Whilst the speakers have a lot to do with the superficial presentation and quantity (bass extension etc.), they can only reproduce that which is given to them - they cannot reinvent missing information.

As DSJR has written, the source first principals are very easy to demonstrate with turntables (and often were/are demonstrated). The fact that many digital sources exist at a similar level of mediocrity does not mean that the source first principal is any less true.

Reffc
20-05-2012, 08:28
Hmmmm.

Source first? No, definitely not. Those that use the argument "rubbish in = rubbish out" forget that no-one deliberately chooses a "rubbish" source.

Most sources, even modestly priced, are very good these days. Most if not all digital sources offer very low distortion. As has been said, it's often the standards of recording and mastering which let digital music down.

Most TT's are set up badly? I'm not so sure about that. I don't know one enthusiast (and I know a few) who uses as badly set up TT, what would be the point? Ok, I do know of one, but I sorted his deck out for him.

I won't comment on digital V's Vinyl other than to say both have their place and both types of replay systems can offer superb quality.

Amplification: most SS amps these days exhibit ultra low distortion, so its usually a matter of finding something you like with the grunt to drive your loudspeakers. Valves amps are MUCH harder to get right as things like damping factor and circuit compatibility with your loudspeaker load must be correctly matched, but still, relatively easy to get right.

Loudspeakers:

Most definitely IMHO the hardest to get right and the one choice that can make or break any system. People often forget their rooms and room loading/acoustics when choosing loudspeakers. You cannot chose a speaker from a review, that only gives an indication how it may compare with similar transducers. Always best to get a home audition or failing that take into considerations size, SPL levels, sensitivity and load and placement. Get that right and some fairly ordinary source components up front will still sound better than good source components played through badly matched loudspeakers.

Loudspeakers first...most definitely!

Linn were wrong...plain and simple. Maybe it was in context of 'speaker choice back then, maybe it was clever marketing, either way, they were still wrong.

jandl100
20-05-2012, 08:39
Linn were wrong...plain and simple. Maybe it was in context of 'speaker choice back then, maybe it was clever marketing, either way, they were still wrong.

No, Linn weren't wrong. In their terms that is. ;)

The Linn source-first marketing strategy was put in place simply because they were trying to sell a high price turntable that was intrinsically difficult to set up at a time when they were only selling either no speakers and electronics at all or relatively low cost ones.

In Marketing terms, Linn were spot on and pulled the wool over many folks eyes and ears in a supremely effective way. Ye cannay argue with good marketing tactics! :lol:

And as we have seen here, the Linn Marketing Legacy lives on to this day. :doh:

SteveW
20-05-2012, 08:54
The other Linn marketing success was pushing the idea that speakers were made better through going active. Linn speakers certainly were, at a cost.
However having gone down the Harbeth route, I rejected this.
It was interesting hearing The Adam Tensor Epsilon sounding far better than any Linn speakers I've ever heard. Mind you, I would have a struggle convincing my better half to live with the aesthetics of Adam Speakers.

DSJR
20-05-2012, 09:13
ALL speakers have the potential to be better in active form - it's a measurable and audible fact, all other things being equal. For some reason, and it's probably because Alan S likes to be in total control over his expertise, not trusting it to others, he always diverts the question regarding making his excellent passive designs active - it's been done on the HUG, by Labarum and myself amongst one or two others. Not to say he hasn't done active models, the HHB Circle range didn't go loud enough for bedroom DJ's but have a great sound I'm told and the 40's in active form were ONLY supplied to studio environments where Alan could PERSONALLY install and calibrate them. The 40 actives that have made their way out of their originally intended environment have always ended up damaged apparently and are best avoided.

Having said that, and perhaps showing just how far drive unit design has come along in recent times, a few years ago I compared my outgoing ATC SCM20ASL Pro actives with a Croft Series 7 driving P3ESR's at hifi dave's. The bass of the ATC's was either lacking, or of the "stunt" bop-bop variety if the bass control was upped a couple of notches, the mid on both speakers was as clear as each other but the treble on the Harbs was in a totally different plane of existance, the directly driven Vifa's in the ATC's sounding one-note and spitty in comparison, especially on brushed cymbal-work, where the P3ESR's were able to help you hear HOW the cymbals were being struck..

One day, I'd love to hear a modern active Harbeth, but in the short to medium term I very much doubt this will happen, as their market is all about more mature listeners with existing setups who've gone through all the HiFi sounding squeakerettes out there, who listen to live acoustic music often as well as studio produced pop and rock music and who want to kick back at home and luxuriate in the MUSIC, not really bothering with the HiFi. Current harbeths really are something special, the whole being sublime DESPITE passive drive, not BECAUSE of it, if you see what I mean.

It's a VERY dangerous place to be at present, due to the personalities who stifle any opinion contradictory to their own, but the AVI (HDD) forum has some chapter and verse and links on how much better active drive is supposed to be. Having been there thirty five years ago with Linn, Naim, B&W (Active Ones), ARC 101's and Meridian and later with my beloved ATC100A's, I don't need to be convinced on how good active CAN be, but used domestically, rather than as a monitoring tool, it takes all the "fun" out of the separates "hobby" many of us still share.

Oh crap, this has turned into another DSJR diatribe/lecture/essay. I'm so sorry fellas, I really should get a bloody life :(

jandl100
20-05-2012, 09:22
Oh crap, this has turned into another DSJR diatribe/lecture/essay. I'm so sorry fellas, I really should get a bloody life :(

:lol:


ALL speakers have the potential to be better in active form - .... but used domestically, rather than as a monitoring tool, it takes all the "fun" out of the separates "hobby" many of us still share.

Yes, I like to mix & match. :)

I've owned just 3 pairs of active speakers, I think.
- Bowers Active One - luvverly! :drool:
- ATC SCM11 - :zzz:
- Wharfedale Diamond 8.1 Pro - very good for under £200.
So, out of 3, good/bad/indifferent. Personally I am not tempted by the active approach on the basis of my direct experience.

I've not heard an active pair of the same type as a passive I was familiar with, so can't comment on the intrinsic benefits of the approach. But I am more than happy with passive speakers, and I think speaker/amp-matching to create the synergy that you prefer has a lot to be said for it. Unless you are among the crowd that believes that all decently specced amps sound the same. Count me out on that one!

SteveW
20-05-2012, 09:42
...their market is all about more mature listeners with existing setups who've gone through all the HiFi sounding squeakerettes out there, who listen to live acoustic music often as well as studio produced pop and rock music and who want to kick back at home and luxuriate in the MUSIC, not really bothering with the HiFi. Current harbeths really are something special, the whole being sublime DESPITE passive drive, not BECAUSE of it, if you see what I mean.
Crickey...feel like I've just had my palm read.
It's SO true

Mike A
20-05-2012, 09:45
Source first? No, definitely not..

Hardly surprising that there are so many box swappers out there then is it ?

Audioman
20-05-2012, 10:30
If you have a poor source the whole will sound bad. A great speaker will not fix things and this applies to digital as much as vinyl. It's just easier to mess up a record deck set up. It's all about balance and synergy in the end. The most basic CD player will have most of the annoying traits of CD sound. To have a more 'analogue' fatigue free presentation you will generaly need to spend more. The old rules with TT's still apply as far as source first is concerned. The question is how much money you throw at the source relative to amps and speakers.

I would suggest it wise to graduate to a high quality source (especialy with refined treble reproduction) before adding a very revealing high end speaker. I would have thought this essential with any speakers from the Adam and Harbeth ranges mentioned which aren't exactly budget. If you have full range floorstanders it stands to reason that a source capable of extended bass reproduction will be needed to make this worthwhile. Having said this the best sound isn't going to be achieved with a Clearaudio Master Reference and Wharefdale Diamonds rather than a more balanced expenditure between components.

twelvebears
20-05-2012, 11:52
Having been through many (not as many as Jerry of course :lol:) speakers over the years, and moved several of those between different rooms/houses, I'm going to say that the room/speaker combination is the biggest single influence.

For many years, I've been absolutely convinced that the room/speaker must be considered as one, and that means that listening to a speaker outside it's eventual home is almost pointless because how it will sound certainly in the bass, is so influenced by the room.

I've had systems which sounded great and then a move to a different house has required a change of speakers to get the speaker/room combo singing again. :doh:

DSJR
20-05-2012, 12:03
A quick PS, mainly regarding Jerry's post above...

There is a difference between what I understand as ACTIVE drive, and POWERED drive. the little Diamonds I suspect were passive speakers with a stereo amp on the back of one? as the original "active diamonds" were. Proper active speakers have the crossover part in a powered electrical circuit before the amps, the amps then looking only at the drivers and a length of speaker cable (inches in most cases).

The design of the active crossover isn't beyond the abilities of proper electronics design engineers and I suspect circuit topologies are on the interweb for anyone to discover. The pro's significantly outweigh any cons there might have been, but I know of at least one "philosophy" that is severely anti the whole "active" idea, although I personally disagree with the reasons why not, as an engineer who knows what he's doing would eliminate these "cons" straight off.....

Nope, I'll stick to "source first" as long as the speakers like the room they're in and are being driven correctly. The fact that you lot claim to hear all these magical differences in cables doing various jobs, easily hear differences in cartridges and DAC's, let alone power supplies and valve vs solid state,means that the different speakers you all use are easily reproducing these differences, so there you are :)

SteveW
20-05-2012, 12:33
Having been through many (not as many as Jerry of course :lol:) speakers over the years, and moved several of those between different rooms/houses, I'm going to say that the room/speaker combination is the biggest single influence.

For many years, I've been absolutely convinced that the room/speaker must be considered as one, and that means that listening to a speaker outside it's eventual home is almost pointless because how it will sound certainly in the bass, is so influenced by the room.

I've had systems which sounded great and then a move to a different house has required a change of speakers to get the speaker/room combo singing again. :doh:

Recently needed/ had to move my Harbeths closer too a fireplace wall ( in order for anyone sitting on a sofa to see the telly - I know, I know)
Of course the bass was too much . This is where the Lyngdorf room correction system really shines. Set it all up again with the mic, and all was well again.

The Vinyl Adventure
20-05-2012, 13:16
My experience (or lack of it maybe) tells me that if you get the speakers right in the room first you have much more chance of finding somthing you like to put music in to them

With the Adams, as Steve says, I can put pretty much anything into them and they sound good, at worst highlight if somthing is wrong ...
These days the only time anything sounds crap through my system is if it's a poor recording!
Now maybe I have got the other components in my system right too, but I've tried other dacs that I've had knocking about since before I bought the Adams and nothing has sounded particularly bad... Including my bluray player through a 90's dac magic 1 that I was testing to sell ... It sounded perfectly listenable!
Spotify, as Steve says sounds brilliant ... Now obviously if you listen you can hear the difference, but I often find my self not caring and just listening to the music!
With my previous speakers the pmc fb1+ all I ever eventually felt I wa listening to was the cabinet ... They just weren't right, and in fact whilst I had them I changed source components lots more and was never happy!
Case in point, I spent c.£1500 on a technics 1210 that never sounded right ... I've spent total around 1/10th of that on my pioneer and it sounds bloody wonderful!

Source first in theory makes sence, but IMO in practice you need to know you have got speakers that work in a room before you worry about what's going into them else you will just end up chasing your tail trying to find the right source going into them!

For me the actual reality is as I say, before I got my speakers right I was never happy with what I put into them... Now I have the right speakers I'm never overly unhappy with what goes into them!

Based on that the source first concept to me is and has to be utter silliness ... And that's coming from somone with a linn source ;)

Re active speakers ... Four amps powering four drivers all perfectly matched by people who know much better than I just makes sence to me... I dread to think what I would need to spend to get somthing sounding quite as sublime (Steves words - cheers buddy ;))

But then what do I know, I can't even cut a circle out of a square or make a rational decision on weather or not to spend £20 on a headshell ;) (I'm having fun Mark before you have a go at me ;))

Reffc
20-05-2012, 16:28
Hardly surprising that there are so many box swappers out there then is it ?

I don't see what that has do do with the context that the statement on "loudspeakers first" was made. In terms of impact upon your listening space, its simple fact that the loudspeakers are the single most important factor. Also, it does very much assume that no-one deliberately chooses poor source equipment, and these days, particualrly with digital, many fine source components available for very little cost. The same IME cannot be said of loudspeakers. Also, if so many people are swapping source boxes to get their sound right for them and failing, perhaps there's a clue in that! Changing loudspeakers guaranteed will have a bigger impact on the subtleties than swapping similar priced boxes around at the source end IMHO. I guess its true that once you have the loudspeakers that work well in your space, its probably a more sensible time then to play with source components but you could be on a hiding to nothing (and an expensive one) if you try to tune the sound the other way around, given the assumption that the loudspeakers are simply a poor match for the room. There's absolutely nothing contentious about that, its common sense.

On DSJR's note, I agree with just about everything you've said there David. I'm looking forward to my new loudspeakers arriving in a few weeks. I've gone down the Harbeth route (SHL5's) driven by Croft amplification, so your observations on a Croft/Harbeth combination sound promising. Despite everything I've said, I have made the cardinal sin of not auditioning the Harbys in my room space first, but have done my homework. As most (perhaps bar the M40.1) have been designed to work in small to medium listening spaces, most listening environments can be tuned with a little acoustic treatment to optimise things and from everythig I read, passive Harbeths are what a lot of musicians end up with, not to mention compulsive box swappers who want to retire so they can actually listen to music ;):lol:

Marco
20-05-2012, 16:54
If you have a poor source the whole will sound bad. A great speaker will not fix things and this applies to digital as much as vinyl. It's just easier to mess up a record deck set up. It's all about balance and synergy in the end. The most basic CD player will have most of the annoying traits of CD sound. To have a more 'analogue' fatigue free presentation you will generaly need to spend more. The old rules with TT's still apply as far as source first is concerned. The question is how much money you throw at the source relative to amps and speakers.

I would suggest it wise to graduate to a high quality source (especialy with refined treble reproduction) before adding a very revealing high end speaker. I would have thought this essential with any speakers from the Adam and Harbeth ranges mentioned which aren't exactly budget. If you have full range floorstanders it stands to reason that a source capable of extended bass reproduction will be needed to make this worthwhile. Having said this the best sound isn't going to be achieved with a Clearaudio Master Reference and Wharefdale Diamonds rather than a more balanced expenditure between components.

Spot on, Paul; particularly the bit in bold! :)

Marco.

P.S All I'd change is the "poor source", in your first sentence, for "poorer source" (as in: notably poorer than the rest of the kit used). The intended meaning is better that way.

The Vinyl Adventure
20-05-2012, 17:15
If its all about synergy I'd have though active speakers are the obvious solution
Amp/speaker synergy out the box ;)

Marco
20-05-2012, 18:25
Yes, but there are many different ways of acheiving synergy... Your (successful) route is but only one! ;)

As Paul correctly says, balance is also the key. The problem we have in discussions like this, is people favouring one extreme or the other, where the correct, most successful approach, lies somewhere in the middle. There's a valid reason why most of the equipment in my system has cost approximately the same amount....

It's also extremely telling when hardly anyone mentions the importance of the set-up of the equipment itself, and the role of ancillary items, such as cables and supports. I've yet to be genuinely impressed by ANY system, where the owner hasn't paid proper attention to the importance of the latter, in terms of achieving the synergy in question, and with it, long-term musical satisfaction.

Jerry aside, unhappy box-swappers (people who continually and unsuccessfully chase some unattainable notion of nirvana), in my experience, tend to be those who pay scant attention to the system-building fundamentals, and place too much importance on the 'brawn', rather than the 'brain', components which make up their systems - and also focus too much on the boxes themselves, at the expense of other (equally important) considerations.

Marco.

Wakefield Turntables
20-05-2012, 19:17
Case in point, I spent c.£1500 on a technics 1210 that never sounded right ... I've spent total around 1/10th of that on my pioneer and it sounds bloody wonderful!
;))

£1500 on a techie?? And you didnt get a good noise, what did you purchase?

The Vinyl Adventure
20-05-2012, 19:30
I cant remember exactly what i spent .. thats very ball park .. I think it may have been a good bit more tbh ... jelco 250 + cable and heavy weight, mn baring, oc9, herbie mat, timestep psu,, isonoe feet ... think that was it ...

In hindsight it probably would have sounded great in another system ... didnt in mine ... well ... I wasnt happy with it anyway

For the benefit of this convo, this was with a pair of speakers I took me a long time to realise were actually the source of a lot of my issues

The Vinyl Adventure
20-05-2012, 19:41
Yes, but there are many different ways of acheiving synergy... Your (successful) route is but only one! ;)

Of course ...


As Paul correctly says, balance is also the key. The problem we have in discussions like this, is people favouring one extreme or the other, where the correct, most successful approach, lies somewhere in the middle. There's a valid reason why most of the equipment in my system has cost me approximately the same amount....

perhaps ... but as i say, in my experience harmony was only achieved once the speakers/amps were in place ... I guess I stumbled across an incorrect yet successful path to happiness for my self


It's also extremely telling when hardly anyone mentions the importance of the set-up of the equipment itself, and the role of ancillary items, such as cables and supports. I've yet to be genuinely impressed by ANY system, where the owner hasn't paid proper attention to the importance of the latter, in terms of achieving the synergy in question, and with it, long-term musical satisfaction.

My £34 ikea lack corner tv stand is almost definitely part of the whole that makes my system sound so good ;)

Marco
20-05-2012, 19:47
Hehehehe... Aye!

Personally, I prefer your turntable support!! :)

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
20-05-2012, 20:25
thing of beauty int it ...
Ironically it actually appears to be very good at its job ... I can only assume its because of how solid it is!
Despite me playing records at somewhere close to 1g on a system that im told should be susceptible to problems from foot fall (this 6hz resonant frequency thing i still dont really get) ... I have no problems at all!
Its also almost perfectly level

John
20-05-2012, 20:26
One of the issues about getting a transparent open system is that it will sometimes tell you that you have issues in your system set up. When I first got really into hifi most of the time I was totally frustrated with the sound I tried cables I tried speakers I tried amplifiers but I was always frustrated. When I started to address the mains issues in my room I started to become a lot happier
I think getting a decent sound can be a really frustrating experience I know I spent far to much money in the past trying to achiev this
Room acoustics play a vital part, sources play a important part and so does the whole synergy thing. I guess what I am trying to say its best to avoid extremes and be open to different possibilities.
A good system evolves over time and experience

The Vinyl Adventure
20-05-2012, 20:31
Can I just add "blind luck" & "knowing people who will give you a big discount" to the list of things that can possibly help to make a system turn out very good ;)

Marco
20-05-2012, 20:32
A good system evolves over time and experience


Well put, John - and spot on... :clap:

Also, it's important to understand that there is no universal or 'quick fix' for the above, which all too many people want to gain (through sheer laziness)! :rolleyes:

Marco.

Marco
20-05-2012, 20:38
Can I just add "blind luck" & "knowing people who will give you a big discount" to the list of things that can possibly help to make a system turn out very good

Indeed. You should acknowledge that you also 'lucked-out', in terms of discovering top-notch, near irreplaceable, kit from Anthony TD (namely your preamp), through this forum, and also some of the invaluable advice you've had from people here who've been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt! ;)

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
20-05-2012, 21:07
indeed

Reid Malenfant
20-05-2012, 21:07
Time to stick my own oar into the scene I reckon.

While I have little doubt that ultimately the source must at the end of the day be just about the final arbiter when it comes down to audio quality, there is a heck of a lot going on in between that & your ears ;)

All things being equal & you have a set of speakers of high enough quality & an amplifier that'll complement them (as well as a sorted room) then it will likely be the source that will take command of the proceedings.

We all aren't blessed with deep enough pockets or perfect rooms for that matter, so a new pair of speakers for instance can make a huge difference if you haven't taken care of the room itself.

I think these things can make a difference out of all proportion compared to the price invested, after all, it's about finding a more balanced sound, or if you like one that doesn't make the room work against the system.

So speakers can indeed make a huge difference, though it may not be about a question of ultimate quality, but actual listenability due to not getting the room working against them.

I think I have mentioned this a good few times, but the amplifier is also very important. Most amps due to their nature (high feedback class B or AB) tend to damn near strangle the sound. It's so obvious when you hear what a low overall feedback design can do that it's almost scary :eyebrows: Though here I'd be talking class A & high power isn't needed as Marco proves with his copper amps & efficient Tannoys.

I remember making a prototype low dissipation class A power amp with low overall feedback & I tested it with a pair of Castle Trent speakers. A friend happened to be here at the time & we were both gobsmacked at the fact that the tiny Castles were doing bass that they had no right to as well as sounding utterly superb through the whole frequency range.


So I could live with cheapish speakers as long as the amplifier was right & the front end was revealing enough.

As has been pointed out, it's a question of synergy at the end of the day & there is more than one way of achieving this.

YNWaN
20-05-2012, 21:37
I feel that I should point out that my pro 'source first' comments are intended to be viewed independent of cost considerations.

-----------

However, I would agree that a system is only as good as its weakest link. I would also say that many musically unfulfilling systems are made up of components that, individually, are considered good performers. I would also say that few components performance can be judged in isolation and the apparent performance of pretty much any component is inevitably judged through the 'distorting lens' of the other components it is connected to.

Marco
20-05-2012, 21:42
Yup - it's also important to note that in your system the primary source is your turntable.

With a system built around a vinyl source, I would also endorse your approach, which is exactly the reason why my T/T is the most expensive part of my system.

Marco.

f1eng
20-05-2012, 21:56
Simply because of mechanical considerations it is likely, nay guaranteed, that the differences between transducers is an order of magnitude greater than the difference between properly engineered electronic components then the difference between two turntable/arm/cartridge combinations will be much greater than the difference between two CD players (assuming no fancy output filtering/analogue stages) and the differences between speakers/rooms will be greater than the difference between record players.
It is certainly the case that information lost at the source can never be recovered (I include here dickery perpetrated by the recording, mixing and cutting engineers).
Having said that the room/loudspeaker has a big and obvious effect on the sound, so it is, IMO, steadfastly dim to have a spectacularly good source and get little benefit from it due to poor speakers or room interface, unless this is just a transitional phase during upgrading.

Marco
20-05-2012, 22:07
It is certainly the case that information lost at the source can never be recovered (I include here dickery perpetrated by the recording, mixing and cutting engineers).
Having said that the room/loudspeaker has a big and obvious effect on the sound, so it is, IMO, steadfastly dim to have a spectacularly good source and get little benefit from it due to poor speakers or room interface, unless this is just a transitional phase during upgrading.

Absolutely, Frank!

Room > speaker interaction is the daddy of all considerations, providing of course that one isn't simply using diddy little 'speaker-ettes', which should work almost anywhere.

However, the mistake people often make is that having attended to the above, thinking that it's almost 'job done', and not paying equal attention to everything else that's important!! :doh:

Marco.

Welder
20-05-2012, 22:21
I think it’s important to separate out analogue from digital sources. One of the attractions for me at least when I played records was the major differences in sound that could be obtained by swapping cartridges, tone arms and deck settings around. When Linn advocated source first approach I think, despite the obvious marketing advantages, they had a valid point. Apart from the record player set up, we/I tended to have other electronics in the path such as SUT’s, phono stages, and separate pre amps with all their associated cabling and the opportunities to seriously mismatch kit were plentiful and in general, people stereos had a personality and like personalities in general one either liked it, or one didn’t.

With digital and file based audio especially I would argue that the opportunity to mess about with the data enough to effect the sound unless one uses DSP are more limited. Consequently, for those of us who have gone digital and dispensed with the spinning disc bit, the emphasis on what impacts on the final sound emanating from the speakers has changed.

I’ve tried a few digital sources now and eventually satisfied myself that while subtle but still worthwhile changes can be made messing about with a file based digital source one isn’t going to get any night and day differences, assuming of course one has a competently designed Dac and have a correctly set up computer source for your particular Dac. Digital has done a great deal to “standardise” data sources.
This has meant imo that the importance of the source has shifted when considering digital sourced sound.

There is no doubt in my mind that the most important factor in my particular set up is the quality of the loud speakers but even more importantly, their interaction with the room. Not many of us actually listen to out stereos, what we listen to is the room they operate in. If you don’t have an RTA program the influence of the room on what you listen to is easily demonstrated by setting up in a different room. In my experience such an experiment has had a larger impact on the final sound than any component change I’ve made.

So, for data based systems I would argue that the speakers and room are where the most gains are to be had until someone comes up with something truly revolutionary with regard to digital to analogue conversion.
Eventually most of us will end up with all digital systems up to the speakers. It seems the logical way forward. We’re getting pretty good at moving data around undamaged and unaltered despite concerns over timing and noise.

So, when Linn first advocated source as primary importance perhaps they were right but I don’t believe this is the case any more.

Mike A
21-05-2012, 06:20
Reading through this thread again I had a very contentious thought, the reason there is now this emphasis on speakers first is because digital still isn't as good as analogue :sofa:

Now I don't actually believe that good digital is still being left behind by analogue but the emphasis must be on "good digital" :whistle:

Back when I lived in Germany I knew a guy who believed that it should be speakers first. He had very nice speakers and a Burmester amp but only an average cdp because he had been told that all cdps sound the same, he was never happy with it. I took a couple of better cdps to his house and he agreed that they sounded better, I also showed him that mediocre speakers on a good front end and amp also sounded good. A year or two later he had sold everything and bought an average surround system because he was disappointed with his hifi :doh:

I think what I am trying to say here is that if you don't spend as much as you can afford on your source you will end up swapping boxes, I think, IMHO of course.

Oh, and my new cdp has closed the gap with analogue quite well. In fact I am planning upgrades to my TT as I sit here :eek:

DSJR
21-05-2012, 08:02
Reading through this thread again I had a very contentious thought, the reason there is now this emphasis on speakers first is because digital still isn't as good as analogue :sofa:

Now I don't actually believe that good digital is still being left behind by analogue but the emphasis must be on "good digital" :whistle:

Oh, and my new cdp has closed the gap with analogue quite well. In fact I am planning upgrades to my TT as I sit here :eek:

Here I go again :rolleyes: PLEASE bear in mind that master grade recordings, especially of pop and rock music since the 70's, tend to sound dry in acoustic and clinically mutli-mono in presentation, especially before the wash of reverb that the 80's recordings started to add. The intention was that the vinyl end product would add some bloom and softness/blending to "finish off" the reproduced recording. In my opinion, you just CAN'T blame digital for reproducing the master recordings in such an accurate fashion. You may not like the end result (I don't always, especially compilations of 60's singles which show bass overload distortion in all its glory), but that's where a REALLY good mastering engineer comes along.

I have a later Siouxsie & Banshees album where the album tracks (on CD) sound bass light and close in mix whereas the 12" single mix of a track or two (again on CD singles) sound totally different, with bass depth, a more open mix and "air" in the sound. Why couldn't the whole fuggin album be mixed that way?

Nah, it's the bloomin' music industry and pre conceived ideas messing it all up. There's now great business to be had in preparing analogue masters for careful vinyl cutting of digital source material I'm told :)

Marco
21-05-2012, 09:43
The intention was that the vinyl end product would add some bloom and softness/blending to "finish off" the reproduced recording.


One can definitely hear that effect on certain cuts (mainly from the 1970s era), but I'm utterly mystified as to how anyone with discerning ears could consider it as somehow being beneficial! :rolleyes:

Indeed, such an effect contributes to a misconception, amongst the uninitiated, that vinyl intrinsically has a 'warm' and coloured sound, which is FAR from the case, when it's done correctly, and the music reproduced on a top-notch turntable and system.

Some of the idiots working in recording studios in those days should've been shot!

However, I'm convinced that part of the effect was unintentional, and simply a by-product of the (rather dreadful) recording and mastering equipment used in that era, during the transitional period of studios moving from using high-quality valve, to solid-state equipment, which then was not fully developed or sonically optimised, as is the case nowadays.

Marco.

jandl100
21-05-2012, 10:07
Indeed, such an effect contributes to a misconception, amongst the uninitiated, that vinyl intrinsically has a 'warm' and coloured sound, which is FAR from the case, when it's done correctly ...

Ha - yes, spot on, Marco.

It continually baffles me that so many folk say "analog sound" when they mean warm, smoothed over and laid back! :rolleyes: They really need to hear a decently set up analog rig (at any price point) to realise what a load of nonsense that is!

Reffc
21-05-2012, 10:10
One can definitely hear that effect on certain cuts (mainly from the 1970s era), but I'm utterly mystified as to how anyone with discerning ears could consider it as somehow being beneficial! :rolleyes:

Indeed, such an effect contributes to a misconception, amongst the uninitiated, that vinyl intrinsically has a 'warm' and coloured sound, which is FAR from the case, when it's done correctly, and the music reproduced on a top-notch turntable and system.

Some of the idiots working in recording studios in those days should've been shot!

However, I'm convinced that part of the effect was unintentional, and simply a by-product of the (rather dreadful) recording and mastering equipment used in that era, during the transitional period of studios moving from using high-quality valve, to solid-state equipment, which then was not fully developed or sonically optimised, as is the case nowadays.

Marco.


Agreed Marco.

One of the reasons that a good deal of vinyl, when played back on a well set up system can still sound better than CD is that its pretty hard to really mess up a vinyl recording with huge amounts of dynamic compression. The trend these days with sound engineeres is to mis-use the Fletcher-Munson effect whereby boosting the SPL of cerrtain frequencies makes them stand out in the bass and treble (hence loudness controls for low SPL levels on 1970's/80s's kit).

They've taken this to extremes with CD whereby some recordings have barely 5 to 10dB dynamic range (LOADS of recordings particularly pop fall into this category as thats what the recording company marketeers think will sell and what sounds best over the radio waves). If you tried this with vinyl, the stylus would jump out of the grooves! Even poor vinyl is at least twice this level (20dB range) whilst good vinyl theoretically can be 60, but more often tops out at around 50dB.

That's one of the reasons why vinyl diehards like myself never got rid of the turntable in favour of CD. Don't think its limited to CD recordings as lots of so-say lossless files for download may be lossless in terms of download, but still started life on the studio mixers desk with perhaps 10 to 15 dB dynamic range. Its often a matter of luck what quality you end up with unless you can gather the file data for analysis (its sometimes published). However, good CD and lossless file downloads are theoretically way better than the best vinyl with a theoretical maximum dynamic range of 96dB and lower noise floor. The reality is that both formats have their place in today's system and I can see vinyl being around, along with CD well into the future for various reasons in spite of newer format releases.

Still, the consensus seems to be WITH the PROVISO that the source is reasonable (be that digital or vinyl analogue) that speaker/room interaction is the single most important factor to get right. From that point on as has been suggested, its a matter of balance in the system (system synergy) but source first? Not in context of todays improvements in loudspeaker designs and with the improved learning that many enthusiasts have....we're a more learned bunch than 20 years ago, largely thanks to the interweb!

Mike A
21-05-2012, 11:31
Still, the consensus seems to be WITH the PROVISO that the source is reasonable (be that digital or vinyl analogue) that speaker/room interaction is the single most important factor to get right.

So what you are saying, Paul, is that once the source is sorted then the rest follows ?

DSJR
21-05-2012, 11:31
Marco, I think your perspective is from someone who's invested incredible amounts of effort into getting as much out of the vinyl medium as you possibly can. The trouble is, you're probably one of only a very few hundred people in the UK (and a very few thousand worldwide nowadays) who cares so much about it. So many pop/rock records had a boosted upper midband (and correspondingly lean bass) acknowledging that the vinyl end product would sort-of balance out as played on the average stereo. If only all records were made like some of the musically boring direct cuts from the 70's, as these could be frightening in their dynamics, and also some of the best 12" singles, where the limiting was turned off and the dynamics allowed to run free....

As to compression on records - I'd rather have a little bit of gain-riding, as on the original Hounds of Love by Kate Bush. All the basic range s there but in comparison to the original CD I have, the original LP cut is slightly quieter on the loud bits and slightly louder on the quiet bits - you'd only notice if you were really anal about it as I used to be back then.

Anyway, I've said enough now..

Reffc
21-05-2012, 12:00
So what you are saying, Paul, is that once the source is sorted then the rest follows ?

Err, no that is not what I said at all. I repeated the opinion from my earlier posts that most sources (especially digital) are pretty good these days and providing a reasonable (read "not necessarily expensive") source is used then the loudspeakers/room are the most important aspects. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

You need a source otherwise there's be no music, right? For that reason, I'd say its important you have one ;)

Is it the most important aspect of the audio chain wrt to sound quality and should most money be thrown at it to get the best sound output? No. That's my own view. The speakers matter more IME and IMHO. I'll repeat it again just in case its forgotton from the beginning of the post....most reasonably and modestly priced source components these days are pretty good.

I have heard a Rega P3 with Goldring cart and Graham Slee phono stage played through a humble Rotel amp into some fairly decent speakers knock spots of a Linn/Naim system played through some older Linn Index speakers. The latter system sounded crap but was at least 5 times the price of the humble system because the owner still clung to the Linn hype of source first and neglected the importance of the loudspeakers in his large listening space. He could have thrown a Kazillion quid at the source and the system wouldn't have sounded any better than it did.

kininigin
21-05-2012, 13:05
A few years ago,i was talking to someone at work who was into hifi/music.I mentioned that i,at the time,had an arcam and wharfedale set up and was looking to upgrade my system.

I asked him what he had,and he gave me a list of items i have never heard of.When he told me the cost of these items,i could see why.I cannot remember the names of anything,but did remember that he said his cables cost many mulitple hundreds.

Anyway.he was adamant that i sort out the amp and speakers first as this was the most important element nowadays as digital (i had no plans for a tt at the time) had come on so much.

So with that in mind i decided to go the active route,as i knew if done well,the amps would perfectly match the drivers,it was just then a case would they work in my room,which they did.

They were used with a beresford dac as a pre amp,but i never thought,as i have upgraded my system,to concentrate on the source first (Even when adding a tt) I then added a quality pre amp and am now that i have the speaker/amp combo that i like,i will now look at the front end.

All this has taken me 3-4yrs so far but getting the speaker/amp combo sorted has allowed me to enjoy my music without endless box swapping.

Just to add,my digital front end is the cheapest part of my system,the tt is on a par (so far!!) with with everything else!
Also looking at cables,stands has come before i concentrate on the front end as well.