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

[Irvrobinson]

I may have to check into the Apple TV. If I can find some device I can pair w/ my Thinkpad, (I guess via bluetooth), I might be in business

Apple TV is nice, better overall than Roku, but it has one major flaw... no Amazon support!

 

[KEW]

I have been ignoring You tube for a long time until recently I suddenly realize there are a lot of decent quality materials that are very enjoyable.

Check out a group called "OK Go" on youtube. The music isn't the best, nor is it obnoxious, but damn those guys are creative and having fun!!!

 

[DD66000]

The quality of the speakers and how they are setup are at the top of my list to get the audio right.
As for amps, I am convinced that the quality of a pre-amp is more important than the power amp.
High priced cables...pure snake oil. Going with more an minimal room treatments...also snake oil.
The quality of the recording is very important...a bad recording is a bad recording, no matter what is in the system's chain.

 

[James Johnson]

I do not care if it is Home Theater or Stereo HiFi in my opinion the most critical step is Main speakers location and it correlation to the primary listening area and the room as whole. With some speakers and locations this can be a rather daunting task. I have a pair of Apogee Centaurs in a room with a vaulted ceiling running in parallel with the speakers output. Due to this my right speaker is in an area with a lower roof line. To compensate for this, I pulled the speaker out further from all walls, especially the back wall and also made a minor adjustment to the balance. While this is not a 100% fix, which I think is pretty much impossible, it does compensate for the room quite well. If subwoofer(s) are part of your speaker system their location and equalization is also absolutely critical but this is a completely different set of parameters even though the speaker location and room have not changed.

 

[felipe]

I would say speakers are the 1st biggest impact, followed by room acousitcs/placement and then the source material. Why in this order? Well, IMO a poor set of speakers will make even the best recorded material sound poor no matter where the placement or how well treated you room is. A good set of speakers can make poorly recorded material at least sound halfway decent, and more importantly bring out the best in high-quality recordings . In addition, good speakers generally are more forgiving of placement (so far in my experience )

 

[Seth=L]

I voted for mood/psychological. After all, there are people who believe BOSE sounds best, and it is subjective.

I realize that isn't really the point of this thread, but when you try to break down audio to it's Midi-chlorians you may begin to lose sight of what brought you to high fidelity in the first place.

 

[felipe]

I voted for mood/psychological. After all, there are people who believe BOSE sounds best, and it is subjective.

I realize that isn't really the point of this thread, but when you try to break down audio to it's Midi-chlorians you may begin to lose sight of what brought you to high fidelity in the first place.

I believe there is a "disturbance" in the force . Star Wars fan are we??

 

[PENG]

The quality of the speakers and how they are setup are at the top of my list to get the audio right.
As for amps, I am convinced that the quality of a pre-amp is more important than the power amp.

It depends on where it is on the point of diminishing return. I think more often than lot, it becomes less important because it is limited by the upstream device, such as the media player, turntable/cartridges, tuner, DACs etc. Fortunately, most people don't need to spend a lot of money to eliminate electronics as the weak link in their systems, leaving mostly the speakers, recording quality and room to deal with, that's just my 0.2 cents.

 

[James Johnson]

I like your point about the recording quality. So much is just not done well in the first place and then made worse by additional compression to fit more music on a device. A friend of mine was playing a highly compressed and copy of Dark Side Of The Moon, when he heard my uncompressed version he could not believe the difference.

 

[PENG]

I would say speakers are the 1st biggest impact, followed by room acousitcs/placement and then the source material. Why in this order? Well, IMO a poor set of speakers will make even the best recorded material sound poor no matter where the placement or how well treated you room is. A good set of speakers can make poorly recorded material at least sound halfway decent, and more importantly bring out the best in high-quality recordings . In addition, good speakers generally are more forgiving of placement (so far in my experience )

Well, it depends on how "good" and how "poor" the recordings and speakers in questions are. I have found very good source material could sound better with my worst speakers than very poor source material with my best speakers. But then, it is hard to quantify the degree of good and poor.

It would seem that Paul, the author of the article got it right in the first place when he said "and in no particular order".

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

One thing is for sure. If I think the recording sucks, I would never play it again no matter what sound system I have.

Many of us have spent years trying to procure a sound system that we think sounds best.

So now the only thing left to do is to add the recordings we think sound best to our current collections.

 

[Seth=L]

I believe there is a "disturbance" in the force . Star Wars fan are we??

 

[Dave LaVine]

Speakers are certainly the most effective way to improve a system that is the easiest to change.

There is no way the wife is going to let me put up acoustic treatments.

I like a lot of music that was not recorded under ideal circumstances.

No matter what caliber of equipment you have or intend to have speakers will improve any system. Fantastic speakers on a mediocre will always sound better than mediocre speakers.

 

[Dan Madden]

I laugh at setups that have elevated speaker cables. However, it can't hurt right??!! Hehehe!!! That being said, music sounds entirely different to me in the morning (fresh ears) than it does in the evening (Tired ears). Also, if I'm not in the mood for listening, I'll turn off my system in about 5mins regardless of when it's played.

 

[B1-66ER]

Soooo, we CAN detect subtle differences in amplifiers... solid state, tube, digital, semi-digital designs make a difference. I'll agree, somewhat.

Digital cabling (I'll reach and point out synchronous/asynchronous in the category) makes less of a difference. I'll note how really well trained your ears need to be.

Room characteristics matter (#roommatters !) your room needs to have some "padding" to aid it in overcoming modes, inconsistencies, and what not.

Analogue cabling? Well, there is that 1 million dollar challenge, Golden Ears.

I've missed plenty, but just these simple factors alone, well I laugh at those that choose to imagine reality. Analogy: Let me not workout, but get plastic surgery while I still smoke, and then put on tons of makeup. Fake it till I make it!

 

[Auditor55]

I voted for speakers, source material and power of suggestion. Although the "power of suggestion" have less effect on me, I'm not that susceptible to Jedi "marketing" mind tricks. Having said that, the Placebo or Expectation effect is a powerful factor.

Speakers will have the most effect on the sound. I didn't say room because I believe the vast majority of people can't do anything about that, unfortunately so. As far source material, how would one know how good the source material is if played on a poor system? Only a good system will reveal how good the source material or content is.

 

[Sachb]

I voted for Speakers, Source material and room acoustics. The reason for me choosing the room scoustics is because a Room also plays an important factor in effecting the sound.

For Ex f u have those marble tiles, glass wall etc etc certain frequencies , such as the upper high frequencies will bounce and reflect leading to it sound like an echo.

Speakers also pla n important rule because, each speaker is made differently, some have larger cabinet , some have higher quality materials ec etc . which effects the sound, how we percieve.

Source material is your audio material or say audio file or any other which your playing, the material if is encoded in highes quality it makes difference.

In reality a Flac (Losseless) sounds more natural and pleasant than a Mp3 .

Also to get high fidelity sound one must calibrate their systems correctly. Placement is also important.

 

[bogrod]

I liked this article. In regard to format - in this case SACD vs CD, there are many SACD's that are transferred from a 16/44 (CD quality) source. While one could say that an SACD mastering engineer could make adjustments to make that SACD mastering sound different, there is no gain in SACD's resolution capabilities. Your "resolution" maxes out at 16/44. Same goes for SACD's mastered from 24/96 or 24/192 masters (that were taken from a previously made DVD-Audio). You have a 24/96 or 14/192 source file on an SACD. A lot of vinyl is also produced from digital files, and in that case you essentially end up with the CD on a much higher maintenance and more prone-to-damage format.

But people will pay for the same stuff on different formats irregardless of questioning or knowing the source material they receive on different formats such as SACD and vinyl. They will assume it must be better because it is on their preferred format, versus one that they may view as less capable.

 

[Bizarro_Stormy]

Obviously...

is the correct answer...

It's all in the Moon Rays, man...

 

[PENG]

I liked this article. In regard to format - in this case SACD vs CD, there are many SACD's that are transferred from a 16/44 (CD quality) source. While one could say that an SACD mastering engineer could make adjustments to make that SACD mastering sound different, there is no gain in SACD's resolution capabilities. Your "resolution" maxes out at 16/44. Same goes for SACD's mastered from 24/96 or 24/192 masters (that were taken from a previously made DVD-Audio). You have a 24/96 or 14/192 source file on an SACD. A lot of vinyl is also produced from digital files, and in that case you essentially end up with the CD on a much higher maintenance and more prone-to-damage format.

But people will pay for the same stuff on different formats irregardless of questioning or knowing the source material they receive on different formats such as SACD and vinyl. They will assume it must be better because it is on their preferred format, versus one that they may view as less capable.

Agree, but there isn't a choice for "format" in this poll. There is one for source material, that refers to quality of recording, mastering etc.