View Full Version : A New Hi-FI Hierarchy
Most of us will be familiar with the old rule of thumb for ranking the importance of the components of a system in order to obtain maximum sound quality for budget but if not I will reiterate it:
1. The source (if a TT it goes turntable - arm - cartridge)
2. The amplifier(s)
3 The loudspeakers
Now if it was ever true it is all abit simplistic and out of date. Here is my proposal for a new, more complete ranking:
1. The recording (quality of recording, mixing and mastering and, in the case of vinyl, the pressing
2. The efficacy of the room/loudspeaker interface
3. The efficacy of the amplifier/loudspeaker interface
4. The source
5. Relative freedom from airborne and structure borne vibration (placement and supports/stands)
6. Synergy or otherwise of the cabling used
7. Quality of the mains feed, plugs and distribution boxes used.
The idea is that this is a hierarchy that can be used to assemble a system of whatever budget (as was the original) in the most cost-effective fashion. For example a wonderfully competent turntable will not help if the system has nasty booms caused by bass peaks due to the loudspeakers just not working with the room so it is best to tackle each element in its correct order.
Opinions, agreements, disagreements, changes? Whaddya got?
I'd say you're mostly right on BOTH sets of points listed there....
With VINYL, the deck, then arm, then cartridge, then phono stage, makes a valid and provable point, BUT, the other points in the second list fit in there somewhere, since if the deck isn't sited properly it won't work properly and if the speakers sound horrid in the room to start with, you're screwed no matter what you do :)
Certainly today, with digital being as good and as cheap as it is now (V-DAC and BM for example), then more can be spent on amp and speakers I feel.
The source should still be at the top. It won't matter how good the recording is or how efficacious the speaker/room interface is if all you get is mediocre sound from a mediocre source, the rest, I would tend to agree, is flexible.
I would agree with most of that Martin.
Both medium/format and source will have different priorities depending on digital or analogue systems I would have thought Martin (?)
flatpopely
04-08-2012, 20:27
The source should still be at the top. It won't matter how good the recording is or how efficacious the speaker/room interface is if all you get is mediocre sound from a mediocre source, the rest, I would tend to agree, is flexible.
+1.
Amp and speakers can't improve what they are supplied.
The source should still be at the top. It won't matter how good the recording is or how efficacious the speaker/room interface is if all you get is mediocre sound from a mediocre source, the rest, I would tend to agree, is flexible.
My thinking is that these days even a cheap digital source will be competent enough to do justice to the recording and modern budget turntables and cartridges are not far behind in that respect also.
Much depends upon the amount and quality of alcohol that has been ingested.
But, seriously, though I don't think a numerical hierarchy is appropriate, quality of mastering/recording must surely be at the top.
Both medium/format and source will have different priorities depending on digital or analogue systems I would have thought Martin (?)
You'll have to expand on that a little bit, John. Do you mean that a digital source should be in a different place to an analogue source? If so, where?
Much depends upon the amount and quality of alcohol that has been ingested.
But, seriously, though I don't think a numerical hierarchy is appropriate, quality of mastering/recording must surely be at the top.
While I agree, is the mastering and recording part of the replay process which is what I think Martin had concentrated on?
After all, you cant do much about it.
My thinking is that these days even a cheap digital source will be competent enough to do justice to the recording and modern budget turntables and cartridges are not far behind in that respect also.
Are you saying that we can forget the source because they are all competent ?
I hope this isn't going to turn into an "All Digital Sources Sound The Same" thread.
I agree that you don't have to spend a lot to get a good source today but competent doesn't automatically mean good.
Much depends upon the amount and quality of alcohol that has been ingested.
.
very good point. How did I forget that? :doh: Where to rank it? Has to be in the top 3, I think...
You'll have to expand on that a little bit, John. Do you mean that a digital source should be in a different place to an analogue source? If so, where?
I'm thinking Martin. :scratch::D
But having just read your comment about a cheap analogue system being able to compete with a digital set up of similar price; I've had to have another think coz you may be right. :eyebrows:
But, then I agree with what Dave (DSJR) was getting at regarding the relative fragility of an analgue source.
(Bear with me and I'll get off the fence in a bit :) )
Are you saying that we can forget the source because they are all competent ?
I hope this isn't going to turn into an "All Digital Sources Sound The Same" thread.
I agree that you don't have to spend a lot to get a good source today but competent doesn't automatically mean good.
No, not at all (I have 10 CD players they all sound very different) - my point is twofold:
1) Budget sources are competent enough that they are outweighed in overall inportance by the success or otherwise of the room/speaker and amp/speaker interfaces
2) Source could be a TT, CDP, PC, NAS, or even a reel to reel deck, anything digital or analogue. Yes you could buy a better TT or Streamer or CDP or whatever but that is only worth it once the nore important issues are settled.
No, not at all (I have 10 CD players they all sound very different) - my point is twofold:
1) Budget sources are competent enough that they are outweighed in overall inportance by the success or otherwise of the room/speaker and amp/speaker interfaces
2) Source could be a TT, CDP, PC, NAS, or even a reel to reel deck, anything digital or analogue. Yes you could buy a better TT or Streamer or CDP or whatever but that is only worth it once the nore important issues are settled.
I can see your arguement but I can't wholeheartedly agree as there seems to me to be a lot of dissatisfied people out there who seem to have started at the speaker end of the hierarchy. I have known people with good speakers and amp but comparatively poor source who were never happy with the sound but wouldn't change the source and sold everything in disgust.
It is a hierarchy of the relative importance - I am not saying don't upgrade your source, it is an attempt to define at what point do you upgrade each element. e.g if your amp does not drive your speakers very well - buying a better cartridge for your TT will not resolve that. The example you give is one where got the more (In my proposed theory. anyway) important stages right then gave up at the source. Why was that?
The guy in my example was told that cdps all sounded the same and that speakers were more important. I took a couple of good cdps to his place, they sounded better but didn't help, I put a cheap pair of speakers in my system to show him that a good system will shine through but he still wasn't convinced so I gave up and didn't even laugh when he sold everything.
I think we might be coming at this from different angles. If you were starting from scratch you really need to make sure that the source is the best you can afford and everything should follow from there, you aren't going to know too much about interfaces what you want is the best bang for your buck. The best bang for my buck is slightly different and I am able to spend time messing around with the acoustics in my listening room and all the other OCD things that we do.
I think what I am trying to say is that for the beginner the old Source-Amp-Speakers is probably the correct way to get the best sound but not necessarily the best way to spend your hard earned.
I think we might be coming at this from different angles. .
Yes we are :) I am talking about a hierarchy of importance, not of spend. The speakers could be some little Wharfedales, the amp an old Sansui or A&R, what is important is that they work together well. The source could be a Goldring Reference or some mega bucks CDP if you want and can afford. As you say even with cheap speakers the quality from upstream will shine through. What I am theorising is that amp/speaker/room has to be right first of all, this does not mean you spend all your budget here, you just make the right and appropriate choices.
You won't know how your amp/speaker/room will sound until you have them all together and then you will still need a good source to actually hear anything ;)
Well, a bit of experience from getting it wrong does help ;)
Anyway it is just a theory I was mulling over and have thrown out there to be discussed, I am not preaching the one true way or anything.
Like your cats btw - mine is currently sprawled out on the coffe table prior to a night on the tiles.
I really don't want to think about how many times I've managed to get it wrong over the years :whistle:
The cats are busily sleeping on the amps as they are the warmest spots in the house right now :D
The cats are a lot smarter than us;)
There are plenty of times when I think their IQs are way higher then mine :)
There are plenty of times when I think their IQs are way higher then mine :)
Hmmm, can’t say I think the same applies to dogs. :scratch:
Sunny, does pretty much what I tell him. How stupid is that!? :doh::D
I don't think there is a hierarchy as such more a synergy between what components you choose to put together. Some speakers are sensitive to room interactions, so this is something to be aware of in particular... amps don't really care what room they are in though unless you put a Nait 2 in a concert hall.
People criminally underestimate the importance of a decent DAC or CD player though, and I certainly don't think a Musical Fidelity M1, DACMagic etc. are "high end" - they just offer good sound.
The ancient addage that if the source is poor there is nothing that the amp and speakers can do to put it right is indisputable, even obvious.
OTOH the room speaker interface can certainly throw away everything gained by having a good source.
ALL speakers have some interaction with the room they are in, with the possible exception of the Gradiente Helsinki. Omnis, bipolars and planar speakers add a large amount of the listening room acoustics to the soundfield. All speakers have a bass interaction with the room depending mainly on where the speaker is in the room.
IME the position of the speakers in the listening room is the most important thing to get right, and no source component I have tried of heard of can overcome the shortcomings of getting this bit wrong.
Personally I would say spending more than £5k on a stereo if you have to put it in a room where you can't optimise the speaker position (living room layout or wife preference, for example) is a waste of money.
Generally I would say the OP is pretty well spot on, and the old over-simplistic advice did not take enough important parameters into consideration, and was, if we're honest, marketing lead advice intended to sell more Linns...
It doesn't make marketing sense for a salesman to tell a potential client that getting speakers in the right place in the room is important if it means his wife will object!
In the 70s the advice was speakers first. My first system had Goodmans Mezzo SL speakers (don't laugh) which were well reviewed at the time and I thought sounded great in the shop but less good at home. Over the next few years I tried several other amps and several cartridges but none of them made any significant difference.
It came as quite a shock when I eventually found that the speakers simply were incapable of revealing the differences in the components I had auditioned. Get the speakers wrong and you may be wasting your time tweaking the source.
Oddly, even though the speakers would not reveal the difference between amplifiers and cartridges, I could hear a very clear difference between a good recording and a poor one. I had a direct cut version of Thelma Houston's 'Pressure Cooker' which was clearly and obviously way above a normal record.
It came as quite a shock when I eventually found that the speakers simply were incapable of revealing the differences in the components I had auditioned. Get the speakers wrong and you may be wasting your time tweaking the source.
.
They do have to be pretty poor speakers, or broken, for that to be true, though. IME a modern, cheap plastic tweeter is capable of a very high standard of resolution.
As you say, original advice was about how to allocate your budget so maybe an update list would also be about allocating your budget perhaps?
Times change, technology has progressed. It has probably progressed (progression meaning better AND cheaper) on the digital source front more than amplification and loudspeaker tech both probably improving the least whilst prices rocket!
So in terms of budget spent, it's probably turned upside down with speakers first simply due to current pricing and source last due to tech improvements.
Then we have a very healthy secondhand market so again budget wise it's random and all over the place dependant on what you can find for what prices.
So really your list Martin is an attempt to list out the relative scale of influence of each aspect. In a way, it is something only to keep in mind rather than anything you can follow. I for example would be seeking out the very best recordings AFTER I'd got my system working almost prefectly, else in a sense they will be wasted, your money tied up (unless you're taking into account possibility of increase in value).
The room you have your system in might change but you've speakers too large but got the synergy between amp and speaker right...
As I say, you can't really follow it as such, only keep it in mind.. unfortunately.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.