After swapping components for many years, I have come to a few conclusions as to which components have the greatest impact on sound quality
1. Speakers are the most important component
2. Processor - preamp makes a huge difference
3. Source
4. Amplifier
To clarify, what do you mean by processor and source since there are such different approaches that can be taken and I know you have tried such different equipment. For example my audiophile brother in law has tried everything and has for years settled on the most minimal pre-amp possible more like a stepped volume control so all processing(digital to analog conversion)is done by the source. It would very interesting to hear more on your conclusions comparing the various combinations you have tried.
Processor - the 'front end' of a surround receiver, or stand alone component like the Halo Parasound C1/2, Integra DTC 9.4, or Sony TA E9000ES, as a few examples - the processor processes the signals for surround formats - Dolby, THX, DTS - provides other processing for effects. The processor is a 'preamp' in that it stands in the signal path before amplification (but after the source) and feeds the processed signal to the amp(s). Because it stands before the amp a processor is technically a 'preamp.' An audiophile 2 channel preamp may be active or passive, tubed or solid state or a hybrid, and serves some of the same functions as a multichannel processor.
By 'source' we mean the music source , turn table, DVD player, CDP, your cable box, signal from an antena (TV, AM, FM), XM, Sirius, cassette player, etc.
Having listed some of the sources, it is clear that source in some instances must be moved to the first position, as GIGO applies.
Have to go now, but will be back tonight.
This post reminds me of my wife's major: Sociology - otherwise known as the study of the obvious.
No offense intended, of course, but I don't think you'll get a whole lot of argument from anybody on this one.
well, i will argue just cause i am on lunch break.. i think that the 'source' should be on the top of the list, then the speakers.. point being, if the origin of the signal(cd, record, radio, etc) is not clean, then the sound coming from the speakers will be horrible regardless of how good the speaker is. ?? thats just my thinking.. case in point, have a great vinyl of jimi hendrix, but the needle is frayed.. result, crappy sound.. same goes for radio, weak, fuzzy signal, crappy sound. if you have an MP3 or download that was burned too fast or from bad source, crappy sound.. i think i have a pattern here??
thats my theory, or argument, if you wish to call it that!!
bigjohn
Good point, BigJohn. I think that they are each links in the chain. Another way of saying this - your system is only as good as the weakest part of the signal chain.
If you've got a crappy recording, an underpowered amp, interfered interconnects, a pre/pro with a software glitch or flimsy paper coned sattelite speakers in resonating boxes, you wil have a degraded signal - and no amount of great speakers, perfect amplification, awesome source material or stellar interconnects will make up for some other crappy portion of the system...
But that gets us back to studying sociology (the obvious).
When any part of a system performs poorly (or fails) you will probably get poor overall performance...that applies to HT/Stereo, computer systems, or most any other kind of system.
One way this subject is sometimes treated is to look at it from a pctg of total system value. The tough part about saying "40% of your system price should be spent on speakers.." or something like that is that some companies - like Axiom - give you great value for the dollar. Whereas there are others that don't do nearly as good of a job, or have cost disadvantages (B&M brands).
When I was shopping for my system I operated under the premise that my 'quality' priorities (as subjective as that sounds) should be
1. speakers
2. receiver (wasn't considering separates at the time)
3. interconnects
4. source
Obviously this can't be perfectly translated to dollars spent...I spent less on my interconnects (once I figured out there were good alternatives out there to the Monster marketing machine) than I did on any one source.
What I have come to appreciate after spending a lot of time lurking and some time posting on this board is that I probably should have spent more time shopping for better source components - my Sony DVD player makes me wince, wishing I had gone for a refurb Denon universal player. Oh well, live and learn.
Well I don't think when 2x6 started this thread he was intending to start a discussion based on weakest links. I think we can all agree that given decent quality in all components, speakers are most important in the final result. Niether do I think this thread was started to debate differences in music and recordings, so lets assume the same recording in all comparisons.
I would like to hear about experiences with different processors from passive preamps to digital processors all other things being equal, and different sources, ie. cd and dvd players and perhaps vinyl & turntables, again all other variables staying the same.