Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound quality ?

[humblebee]

Hello all,

I was thinking about the contribution that various components of a Music System have on the overall sound quality that finally comes through to us.

I have read some threads but have been unable to summarize. For e.g. in my small practical experience, the amplifier does a very large contribution (2nd only to speakers). Now in a way this is supported too in the long running nice thread 'Husband & Wife'.
But then some days back I read a thread 'Essentials for getting yourself good music in the home'. About amps it says that dont worry abt amps, they just amplify the power.

But my goal here is not just to identify these things.

I aim to do these things:

- Identify the components that have the majority effect on the overall sound quality. (parts only not room acoustics etc). Here it is necessary that we limit ourselves to a balanced and matched system (I mean dont pair a 50k+ amp with 25k speakers. You get the point)

- Identify what percentage of contribution do these things individually make.

- And to also reach a general consensual agreement on the answer to this question. (Here obviously, opinions will differ, but it is generally seen that experienced members do seem to converge upon some opinions like for e.g. stereo amp is better than AVR and 2.0 setup is better to start out with & so on).

I am thinking community level here. What does the hifivision community think of these things?

I think that these questions are independent of personal likes.
For e.g. if I try to answer the above questions then I have to agree to a list that looks like this:

Speakers - 30%
Amplifier - 20%
DAC - 20%
Source (audio file) - 20%
Connectors - 10%


But if this list is adjusted to my own personal likes then it would be like this:
Speakers - 20%
Amplifier - 20%
DAC - 30%
Source (audio file) - 20%
Connectors - 10%

Yes I like a better sounding sound more than a clearer reproduced sound if you understand what I mean.
Kind of like - a system that distorts sound less (purer sound) but does not reproduce it so well.
But this is just personal - a private and whimsical liking.

Along with this I had an idea and I seek your opinion on this too :-

In the field of Software Development (Waterfall Model specifically), it is known that errors in an earlier stage of Software Development Life Cycle if not corrected there, get amplified in later stages and require an order of magnitude extra effort to get rid of.

Now, I was thinking that whether this is the case in music reproduction.
I mean if it is then the Audio File would have the largest effect and Speakers the least.

Why I am dwelling on this seemingly stupid idea is this --
While it may be said that improvements in jumping to say HD music will not be noticeable on a system that can't reproduce it, the smooth sounding effect it has is unmistakable to me. Even on a cheap music system.
This means that an average listener, who does not want that high a sound quality 'reproduction' (ultra high fidelity) will nevertheless be able to listen to a 'less damaging sound' even on an avg system. Have you noticed this thing?

(I mean think of the benefits you have felt in going from MP3 to Flac. Now having gotten used to this, look at damage of going from Flac back to MP3 even on your phone.)

And now think of the people that still listen to MP3.

I am asking you to look at this thing differently.
If we look at it this way, the list that we have prepared above might change.

Sincerely seeking the opinion and involvement of experienced members here.

Thank you for taking out so much time and ..... phew!

Have a nice day

 

[Shivam]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

If I keep the source material and room acoustics away from the equation, then my investment in my own system is something like this -

Source components (including DAC) 25%
Preamp and Amps 30%
Speakers and Subs 40%
System rack, interconnects, speaker cables, power supply, power cables 5%

I have tried down converting HD files to CD standard and tried on my system and could not identify the difference. I feel it is more to do with the recording and mastering rather than the format it is in. So the waterfall model that you talk of is essentially correct and in my opinion it starts with the miking of the recording !

 

[ranjeetrain]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

IMO, it's hard to break down the percentage, but let's just flow with the spirit of the thread:

Speakers + Room = 60%
Amp + Source = 30%
Everything else = 10%

Here I am assuming all practitioners are same knowledge level and are able to extract best out of what they got.


Edit: I think I'd dwell upon the post a bit in order to add some clear perspective.


Let's take some hypothetical scenarios:

(1) We want a INR 50k system
(2) We want a INR 100k system
(3) We want a INR 500k system
(4) We want a INR 2000k system
(5) We want a INR 100L system

First thing to ask is - we need to determine, how does the level of reproduction vary? Does it vary in direct proportion to the price of the system?

Answer is a resounding NO. In each system, in each component there would be a point of diminishing return. Now there are two ways to go from here. One, we can go by the point of diminishing returns and let that determine the importance of components in the system. Or, we can go the opposite way and fix %age of contribution from individual components and accordingly spend on them. IMO, the latter approach is likely to end up with wrong decisions. So, what we do is - given a certain amount of money we would start with a fresh slate. Add components to it, see how their value adds up to the total and what gives us the best performance at the level. A bit of cost-benefit analysis would reveal investing in what kind of components yields a better result for the reproduced sound.

Important: IME, the percentage breakup also varies among various price brackets. For example: return on investment on cables in high end systems is higher than entry level system. But in a entry level system spending that money on speakers would be a lot more beneficial. Consequently, apparent %age of effectiveness will vary too. Hence, it would be extremely hard to have an universally acceptable standard on this.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

"We" generally disagree! :lol:

But, like RoC, I'd put speakers at the head of the list, not only because I believe that they probably make the most difference, but also because they also probably give the most variety and scope for personal choice.

This assumes that one is connecting them to a reasonably transparent system. The day I replaced an amplifier with one that made the previous one sound like rubbish, I might have posted something else entirely.

 

[Santy]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

I would say in my system, the contribution would be something like

Speakers: 35%
DAC+Transport : 25%
Room: 20%
Amplification: 15%
Everything else: 5%

Content is not a part of the system but playback (GIGO).

 

[keith_correa]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

Speakers - 70%
The rest (source material not included) makes up the rest

 

[dheerajin]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

IMO..while building a system one should give topmost priority to speakers then AMP and then source(DAC,CD player,TT).For everything else there is ample room to play.

its altogether different matter if someone comes with suggestion that cables
should be the more than 30% part of the system. Then i would say there is difference between education and literacy.

 

[humblebee]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

So, what we do is - given a certain amount of money we would start with a fresh slate. Add components to it, see how their value adds up to the total and what gives us the best performance at the level. A bit of cost-benefit analysis would reveal investing in what kind of components yields a better result for the reproduced sound.

Now continuing on from this conclusion of yours (which seems pretty good and it seemed that to me as well) ... the next question that would pop up would be ...

Which component should we start with.

Why this would pop up is that otherwise if we can start with anything and change anything, we would have to have access to a huge inventory. I mean the combinations can be so many. Rather if we finalize one component and add the next then it would be more manageable and it wouldn't become so botherable.

Also taking into account your other assertion that:

IME, the percentage breakup also varies among various price brackets

We can take a conceptual approach that handles both the above points.

One that I can think of is :
Create categories and build systems that are roughly apt for that categories.

For e.g. we can have categories like :

Basic System - perhaps there is a way to approach this in a non-financial way. Since we are building it to listen to music why not make a system that would play MP3s well. I mean a system that is capable of extracting as much as possible from an MP3. But no more. Sure it would also play Flacs but it wouldnt recommendable for them. This would also provide us with a starting point and answer the first point that I made above. Categories would answer the point that you made (about price brackets)

Medium System - this could be for CD/lossless 16/44.1 files. A system that would do justice to them. Maybe not add anything of its own also.

High End System - I'm running out of ideas here but HD Music perhaps? 24/96 and above.

Undoubtedly, there would be a range of systems that can be made for each category. But as you said, we can aim for a point of diminishing returns.

I mean, we could start with the beginning of the chain - the Source Audio File and move on to the second component from there, tinker with it till we reach a point of diminishing returns and then move to the next component.

I leave this approach to the judgement of all experienced members.
Let us beginners know what you think.

And have a nice day

 

[humblebee]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

Thad, Santy, Keith and Dheeraj, I have read you posts and it seems that speakers ARE generally agreed upon as having the max effect on the sound.

But here's my question - as someone who wants to build, but has not heard to a 'Medium Build System' as pointed to in my above post, how do I approach to begin to build it? What do I buy first? Also how do I know that I am going to end up with an optimum system for my money? (You guys after some years of experience can intuitively answer my question. But I can't. And urge you to look at that inability of mine.)

This is not just my question but a problem that I believe is faced by everyone who wants to move to the next level of listening to music.

 

[sidvee]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

IMO - Room acoustics/room treatment/speaker position/listening position are the top contributors to SQ. If you get these wrong even expensive speakers will sound like crap as will rest of the chain.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

Room acoustics/room treatment/speaker position/listening position are the top contributors to SQ.

Am I right in thinking that this approach has been common among the Home Theatre people, but is yet to gain much acceptance among 2-channel audiophiles? In fact it seems to even meet with resistance from some.

I only wish someone had introduced me to the idea ten/twenty years ago when I was still buying stuff.

If you get these wrong even expensive speakers will sound like crap as will rest of the chain.

This is repeated in almost every newbie monitor-advise-please thread on Gearslutz. In a non-newbie, high-end monitor review thread, one post put the point of view that, if your room is not treated properly, then whatever the intention of the speaker designer was, you will not hear it.

Lessons that might be too late for me, although I have not entirely despaired of building a listening room one day.

Humblebee, I don't think you can really classify like that, because at each level, a system should and will be capable of playing anything. More-than-acceptable sound has been affordable (relatively) for decades now. This is not the same as saying that a better system will expose the faults in, say, a bad recording or low-bit-rate MP3, because it will. But, let's face it: 32kb internet-streamed MP3 is actually going to sound bad on anything (at least, it is when the listening fatigue sets in) --- but 320 is going to sound remarkably good on anything, too!

My absurd example of how much difference speakers make (because in this instance, I'm sure it was the speakers, not any amplification matters)... Sometimes I used to connect the earphone socket of my cheapo clock radio to my hifi. Listening to, eg, classical music, albeit in mono, was quite pleasant. What made the clock radio sound intrinsically awful? Not the circuitry, but the 2-inch speaker! I used to do the same out of the TV too.

 

[Kannan]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

I would say source 100%, a poor quality source nullifies everything else down the chain.

transport/DAC/AMP and speakers are equally important and giving a percentile does not make great sense.
Regarding cables, I will give it the least importance.

 

[arj]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

Hello all,


Speakers - 30%
Amplifier - 20%
DAC - 20%
Source (audio file) - 20%
Connectors - 10%

One of the Mistakes most if us make is looking at a system as individual components..while they have to be looked up as synergies

It is very difficult to talk on cost so lets go by importance first. as a budget makes sense to go with 40% for speaker and 30% for amp/source (ignore the cables for th time being)..usually its 10% of the system cost.

1. Speaker + Room - 35 % :Important synergy which actually helps decide the speaker for a room.

2. Speaker + Amp (including power for amp) - 35% : the best amp and the best speaker may be the worst combo..so once we have a speaker for a room we choose the amp which can drive it the best across its range

3. Source -20% (including Power) - Garbage in/garbage out..so need the best quality source you can afford

4. Cables/vibration control... - rest: to be taken up only once 1-3 are done.

 

[dheerajin]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

But here's my question - as someone who wants to build, but has not heard to a 'Medium Build System' as pointed to in my above post, how do I approach to begin to build it? What do I buy first? Also how do I know that I am going to end up with an optimum system for my money? (You guys after some years of experience can intuitively answer my question. But I can't. And urge you to look at that inability of mine.)

This is not just my question but a problem that I believe is faced by everyone who wants to move to the next level of listening to music.

I wud suggest , more than the budget or percentage one should understand the concept of speakers and how it is different from others in a lot. Start auditioning any brand that you got recommendation on and strictly audition the whole family of the same. Try to identify , when the difference in sound starts appearing(SQ). After you have gone through half of the family of that speaker brand, you would have knowledge of soundstage, spectrum, placement of instruments and so on..
Repeat same with other brand...
And i bet by this time your budget would have increased[emoji2] ...
For amp..already much database is covered..and it depends on the sound signature you like..
But believe me, choosing the right speakers will keep you much contained and it would be a blessing for you..ask someone, who has been bitten by speaker upgrade bug.

Thats it from my side for speakers. I am no expert. Its just my experience.
For the rest of the chain of the rig...experts are there to chime in.

 

[sidvee]

Re: Do 'WE' generally agree on the contribution of various components to sound qualit

Am I right in thinking that this approach has been common among the Home Theatre people, but is yet to gain much acceptance among 2-channel audiophiles? In fact it seems to even meet with resistance from some.

Yes you are right. In HT, there are usually minimum of 5 speakers and a sub. so very critical to get the room acoustics right (back in the mid 90's prior to auto calibration when we had dolby prologic where there were no discrete rear channels) everything was manual - one had to get a sound level device (radio shack analog meter was popular in those days), and check each channel level, match subwoofer (even subwoofers were a luxury till perhaps mid to late 90's), then check for centre channel intelligibility etc. So a HT enthusiast would have had some exposure to measuring his room and have a general idea of what his room acoustics/ listener position/speaker position/subwoofer position was doing to the sound. Consequently a Ht enthusiast was forced to learn about basic acoustics. At-least in my case that is how the whole room acoustic interaction with the user started, because it is a lot harder getting 6-8 tranducers to work with the room than just stereo. Slowly acoustic treatement products like cylindrical bass traps, panels, diffusers etc. started gaining mainstream status, as did digital correction, and here we are now. However it is imperative to talk about the room first and its acoustic profile before discussing equipment for any serious music/movie lover. Ultimately the room will determine how the equipment sounds and not the other way around.
Cheers,
Sid