A New Hi-FI Hierarchy

[Macca]

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Now if it was ever true it is all abit simplistic and out of date.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?

[DSJR]

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.

[Mike A]

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.

[Welder]

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]

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.

[Macca]

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.

[Joe]

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.

[Macca]

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?

[Welder]

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.

[Mike A]

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.