19 responses in and someone finally mentions “transducer”. Actually there are two transducers (except for completely electronic music): the microphone used to make the recording and the speakers used to (re)make the sound. Everything in between is handling either a digital signal or an electrical signal (or some combination of both). So the choice should be transducer or electronic
Now of course most of the time we listeners have no control over the first transducer (aka the microphone and the recording) but we do have control over the second transducer (the speakers and room). And we also have control over the drink. I perfer bourdon on the rocks.
We make it seem as though they are two independent variables, and it’s possible to say “Speakers first” or “Source first”. They aren’t.
First of all, rather than just considering speakers, we should be considering the entire constellation of the room, speakers, speaker location within the room, and appropriateness of matching with the amplifier.
But back to my main point, the source and speakers have an interaction term, rather than being completely independent choices. For instance, the benefit of a high resolving source can only be appreciated if the speakers are capable of it. A source may have characteristics that either negate or amplify a speaker’s weaknesses. Likewise, a source may have characteristics that either enhance or subvert a speaker’s strengths.
So looking at this as an entire system approach has its benefits.
That said, starting with the speaker and amplifier in your room is a good first step iteration; then you can find a source that you’re comfortable with in this system. But if you have a good source and want to try a change in the speakers, then you can use the “source-first” approach as the first iteration, and assess how it works with the new speakers.
There’s a lot of shades of gray here that are missed when simply considering this to be a binary decision (“Source first” vs “Speakers first”).
Source first, no doubt about it (at least for me ) If you lose info at source, you just cannot re-create it at amp or speakers. Info can be image depth, singer / instrument positions, the singer’s breath, lips smacked, timbre, etc.
As this thread has been going forward it seems that many of us are talking past one another particularly with respect to the word “source”. Sure we all seem to know and understand what a “speaker” is but can’t seem to agree on what a “source” is. For me there are several unique parts which make up a source:
The recording being played back.
The medium and method of playback, whether an LP, a CD, SACD or a digital file. So with an LP the method of playback would be a turntable, tonearm, cartridge and phono preamp. With a CD it would be the CD player, which for the sake of argument includes the DAC. For a digital file it’s the method of getting the file to the DAC.
After the above all of the various mediums converge to some type of amplification (be in built into the speakers or separate amplifiers).
Finally we get to the speakers and room or headphones.
So a $300 DAC feeding an underpowered, distortion laden amplifier will not produce the same level of fidelity as the same $300 DAC feeding a higher powered amplifier with much less distortion.
Of course the same applies to analog “sources” a good turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phone preamp will produce better fidelity than an inexpensive turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phone preamp.
So let’s be clear on what exactly we mean when we say “source” so that we understand each other and can have a meaningful discussion.
Thanks in advance!
1 Like
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
26
Ralph, there’s no meaningful discussion to be had here, because the thread is framed as a false (or perhaps meaningless) dichotomy. As with too many threads on this forum, I might add. Neither ‘source’ nor ‘speakers’ come “first”. They come together. Without output transducers, you can’t hear the music. Without music, the speakers produce nothing.
Hi David; I agree with you, you’re 100% right that speakers play a huge part (i’m a Klipsch guy). However speakers cannot change the quality of a poor recording. Source determines quality. All system components are designed to reproduce sound. It’s not about budget. Component specifications only tell us what that particular component is capable of. Acoustics within the listening environment determine what we actually hear. Sound begins to degrade the moment it leaves the speaker. Acoustics (wave reflections, listening position etc.) determine what finally goes in our ears. Poor listening environment = poor sound reproduction.
I hope that you can understand why I feel source is #1 and room acoustics are #2. Everything in between is a matter of choice. Acoustics within the listening environment allow us to hear what the components are capable of.
Keep smiling and don’t forget “it’s always a good day for something”.
If someone is going to be planful and wants to build something they can upgrade/tweak over time, it really should be Power first, but since you only asked about Sources and Speakers I voted for Speakers.
Surely, some don’t interpret the question the same way, and maybe me neither, but this is the question I answered that I think @Martin_Kelly had in mind:
Given you
don’t want to throw away money by buying intermediate devices through your goal of a full quality system (making a compromise left out),
you can’t afford the full system in one go, but can go pretty much full in on either
Perhaps Linn offer you the ‘best of both worlds’, with a reference streamer that provides digital ‘sound optimisation’ (SO/DSP) to effectively subtract the room from the equation:
I have one of these myself, and it’s one of the very best digital sources I’ve ever heard.
On the basis that any piece of equipment can only - to the best of its ability - reproduce what is played through it, if the source is poor quality then the sound that comes out of any speaker will also be poor.
If the recording is poor, £100,000 speakers can’t save it. In fact, the “better” the speaker the more accurately it will play back all the imperfections of the recording.
If you are still in doubt, look at a musician playing live. If (s)he plays all bum notes, then all you will hear are bum notes. That doesn’t change if you amplify the bum notes and play them through speakers.
So, first step, buy music that is well recorded. That recording is the source of the music you are listening to through your speakers.
Then buy a device that can accurately reproduce the recording and send the signal - analogue or digital - through an amp to the speakers or headphones.
I my mind you start with the speaker you want and build backwards. The source has to be matched to the speaker. In the end the speakers will make the biggest difference in the chain.
The truth is speakers compress air and that compression interacts with the room to determine what you hear. You’re not listening to the speaker alone. You’re listening to the interaction between the room and the speaker. This is not unlike listening to a live performance in a concert hall. That some performance will sound different in a different hall. And, that’s kind of the magic of playing back a recording. The recording may have captured that performance and mixed to produce a specific sound of that recording but how you hear it in your space is going to be unique. Room treatment allows you to hear more of the speaker and less of the room. The benefit of that is both room dependent and speaker design dependent.
I think it’s odd! You subscribe to Roon/Qobuz/Tidal for high sound quality, but you prioritize speakers first? Not sure what you are looking for when replaying music? Maybe the best option for you to save your money is to play Apple Music or Amazon HD and Airplay?
) If you lose info at source, you just cannot re-create it at amp or speakers. Info can be image depth, singer / instrument positions, the singer’s breath, lips smacked, timbre, etc.