What has the biggest impact of sound quality in your Hi-Fi system?

[shadyJ]

I have to think that speakers make the most difference in most sound systems, seeing as how so many people use their $30 AIWA radio to listen to music and their TV speakers to watch movies. If we are talking about hi-fi sound systems, that is a different story- the room becomes a much greater factor, of course. Many times I have seen setup issues be a limiting factor because the user did not know what they were doing, did not understand the technology. They don't set their speakers up right, they don't bother using the room correction equalization, etc. As for the fidelity of the media, I don't consider that a part of the system. The system's job is to reproduce the sound recording as accurately as possible, whatever the content may be.

 

[shadyJ]

Also, very nice article, Paul.

You are right about the way people view mp3s. They way people describe the differences between mp3s and CDs are not what I hear at all, and I think a lot of imagination can account for that difference, even relatively low bitrate mp3s like 128 kbps. To be honest I have a difficult time telling the difference between 192 kbps mp3s and CDs. 128 kbps mp3s are pretty easy to tell the difference when you play them back to back against a uncompressed CD quality wav file, but, as you explain, the difference is not one of harsh sounds or weak bass. 128 kbps mp3s just sound 'flatter' for lack of a better word. Anyone who is worried as to what they are 'missing' when listen to an mp3 file should take a CD of a high quality recording which they are familiar with, rip it to 128, 192, 320 kbps mp3s (using a good encoder), and uncompressed wav, and compare the recording at various points between the different files. If you really want to do it right, have someone else switch between the files so you don't know which one is playing. In my experience, a high quality mp3 doesn't really miss much.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Anyone who is worried as to what they are 'missing' when listen to an mp3 file should take a CD of a high quality recording which they are familiar with, rip it to 128, 192, 320 kbps mp3s (using a good encoder), and uncompressed wav, and compare the recording at various points between the different files. If you really want to do it right, have someone else switch between the files so you don't know which one is playing. In my experience, a high quality mp3 doesn't really miss much.

I've done tests similar in intent to what you've described, and I think being able to discern differences is content dependent. For well-recorded symphony orchestras I think even 320Kbps isn't enough. Nor is it for acoustic jazz. Using my favorite solo piano recording of all time, Malcolm Frager Plays Chopin on Telarc, 320Kbps isn't enough either. For most recent pop music, which uses mostly synthesized instruments and compressed dynamic range, I suspect 128Kbps would be indistinguishable, though I haven't tried that test myself. I just recently got a couple new Adele CDs, so perhaps I'll rip one and give a lower bit rate a try.

 

[highfigh]

From a practical standpoint, much of what determines the quality of the source material is out of our control. If deep bass is heavy and boomy because mini-monitors were used for mixing, there is not much we can do about it. Aside from Herbu's example of damaged media, we are really stuck with the recording quality.

I guess that is not totally true. I like lots of jazz music from the 40's and 50's, but I only listen to modern covers of that music because the old ones invariably have lots of SQ issues (primarily thin tinny sound). The old recordings just suck too much to enjoy on any system, IMHO!
So, I control source material by not buying 50+ year old recordings, but for about everything else, am pretty much stuck with the recording as it was made.

The SQ depends on the medium and how much they cared about how it sounded. The Swing era was about shoveling out units and the records were played on equipment that could never hope to play it back faithfully unless the person had the funds to build a system that was on the level of what the studios had. Some artists and producers were very interested in SQ, notably Bing Crosby and Les Paul and Bing gave some open reel tape machines to Les Paul and as soon as he had figured out how they worked, the next thing he did was order more record heads, which he used to invent multi-track recording.

I don't know if you like Miles Davis, but check out Sketches of Spain and Kind of Blue.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Fully agree, "balance" is the key word. Well, Gene did say: "in no particular order. It’s a three-way tie." That works for me, and I rarely fully agree with anyone.

Actually, I said that, not Gene, but I know he agrees. Quality of program material, room acoustics, speakers.

 

[PENG]

Actually, I said that, not Gene, but I know he agrees. Quality of program material, room acoustics, speakers.

I realized that as soon as I saw shadyJ's post so I fixed the mistakes in two places in my other posts but missed this one. I edited this one now as well but I can't edit what you quoted. Thanks for letting me know that Gene agrees with you.

 

[PENG]

The SQ depends on the medium and how much they cared about how it sounded. The Swing era was about shoveling out units and the records were played on equipment that could never hope to play it back faithfully unless the person had the funds to build a system that was on the level of what the studios had. Some artists and producers were very interested in SQ, notably Bing Crosby and Les Paul and Bing gave some open reel tape machines to Les Paul and as soon as he had figured out how they worked, the next thing he did was order more record heads, which he used to invent multi-track recording.

I don't know if you like Miles Davis, but check out Sketched of Spain and Kind of Blue.

I think Adele is the worst in that sense because the vocal part of all her recordings sounded scratchy to me, the music is good though. It sounded like she had enough dynamic to overload the recording gear, resulting in audible distortion during her peaks. The funny thing is, I mentioned that to friends and was told it wasn't distortion, just her voice.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Also, very nice article, Paul.

You are right about the way people view mp3s. They way people describe the differences between mp3s and CDs are not what I hear at all, and I think a lot of imagination can account for that difference, even relatively low bitrate mp3s like 128 kbps. To be honest I have a difficult time telling the difference between 192 kbps mp3s and CDs. 128 kbps mp3s are pretty easy to tell the difference when you play them back to back against a uncompressed CD quality wav file, but, as you explain, the difference is not one of harsh sounds or weak bass. 128 kbps mp3s just sound 'flatter' for lack of a better word. Anyone who is worried as to what they are 'missing' when listen to an mp3 file should take a CD of a high quality recording which they are familiar with, rip it to 128, 192, 320 kbps mp3s (using a good encoder), and uncompressed wav, and compare the recording at various points between the different files. If you really want to do it right, have someone else switch between the files so you don't know which one is playing. In my experience, a high quality mp3 doesn't really miss much.

You are absolutely correct. As I stated in the article, the differences between 128 and lossless are almost entirely subtractive. Very low-level detail (ambiance, mostly) is lost and as you stated, the soundstage sounds flatter. Low-resolution digital actually sounds a bit like tubes, and it can be more pleasant, especially on a harsh recording. I've been in a few double-blind sessions, and they changed my mind on MP3s. They're not as good as a CD, but it's not a night-and-day difference.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

I realized that as soon as I saw shadyJ's post so I fixed the mistakes in two places in my other posts but missed this one. I edited this one now as well but I can't edit what you quoted. Thanks for letting me know that Gene agrees with you.

Not a big deal, but thanks. And Gene agrees with me often because he is often correct.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Okay, I am impressed with the intelligence of the responses so far.

 

[XIANV]

Source material is the clear answer. Regardless of the hardware & room, I can 100% ABX between a Beethoven piano sonata & Welcome to the Jungle.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

1) speakers
2) source
3) room acoustics (carpet, rug, sofa, drapes, etc.)

If your typical room already has carpet/rug, sofas, pillows, drapes, etc., then room treatment is not needed. In this case, I would say Bass EQ (like Audyssey DEQ) is the next important.

If your room is full of hard surfaces (wood, tile floor), then you must add rugs. Otherwise, even the best source materials, best speakers, and best electronics cannot improve the SQ.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

If you don’t get those three things right, you're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

...

Need to go down with dignity and order.

 

[highfigh]

I think Adele is the worst in that sense because the vocal part of all her recordings sounded scratchy to me, the music is good though. It sounded like she had enough dynamic to overload the recording gear, resulting in audible distortion during her peaks. The funny thing is, I mentioned that to friends and was told it wasn't distortion, just her voice.

Yeah, she's definitely a shouter, just like Katy Perry.

 

[highfigh]

Okay, I am impressed with the intelligence of the responses so far.

Stick around- that, too, may change.

I'm waiting for someone to choose:

Cables with batteries

Cable stands

Green magic marker on the edge of CDs.

 

[PENG]

Yeah, she's definitely a shouter, just like Katy Perry.

I thought she's very musical, I just hope her new album has been done closer to perfection.

 

[highfigh]

I thought she's very musical, I just hope her new album has been done closer to perfection.

I mean that her voice is very loud, compared with others. I think the first of her songs I heard was the theme from Skyfall and I have heard only a few others but it may be a case of choosing the performance over ultimate sound quality, which would be more likely if they recorded it live, rather than her just singing to the other tracks.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Source material is the clear answer. Regardless of the hardware & room, I can 100% ABX between a Beethoven piano sonata & Welcome to the Jungle.

I am speechless. That response is brilliant. I bask in the bright white light of your aura.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Stick around- that, too, may change.

I'm waiting for someone to choose:

Cables with batteries

Cable stands

Green magic marker on the edge of CDs.

They're out there, just waiting to pounce. I've told the story of a conversation I had with an intense audiophile at a trade show. We were discussing one of my favorite topics; room acoustics. He proudly proclaimed "I deal with room acoustics with cable choice." I burst out laughing, thinking we would be sharing his humorous statement. But he was serious, and his feelings were hurt.

I don't even argue about the sonic differences among cables. What I do maintain is that the differences are minuscule when compared to the quality of program material, loudspeakers, and/or room acoustics. First, pick the low hanging fruit.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

1) speakers
2) source
3) room acoustics (carpet, rug, sofa, drapes, etc.)

If your typical room already has carpet/rug, sofas, pillows, drapes, etc., then room treatment is not needed. In this case, I would say Bass EQ (like Audyssey DEQ) is the next important.

If your room is full of hard surfaces (wood, tile floor), then you must add rugs. Otherwise, even the best source materials, best speakers, and best electronics cannot improve the SQ.

Excellent comments.