How much influence to the SQ?

[highfigh]

"Did I say that? Yes, that is what I meant"

I assumed that.

"Yes, of course, all that will affect hearing to some extent but it might be a job in itself selecting a time to listen then. While I have no experience with hearing aids, I would still question the effectiveness of hearing aids to that extent of the missing, reduced, or modified loss."

I know a guy who has a moderately high-end audio store and he has hearing aids in both ears. I haven't asked if they do more than add a little in a particular range but they are making big improvements, especially in the high frequency range, where sounds like 't', 'ch' and 's' live and can be confused if the listener or hearing aid have a problem there. Traditionally, hearing tests have stopped at 8KHz. That's not even good enough for all speech, IMO, and it's definietly not high enough when music is considered.

Here's a link to a high fidelity hearing aid, and there are others:
http://www.zoundshearing.com/customers/zoundsdifference/fidelitysound/

http://books.google.com/books?id=MZDu1Sti69kC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=High+Fidelityl+Hearing+Aid&source=bl&ots=89olBWfUIw&sig=QmkX5YoQIxw3y3TcnqqKOGmEbN0&hl=en&ei=wivESrjIDoKN8AbXkelJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5901

http://www.nal.gov.au/Import web articles/DB _ high fidelity.htm

 

[3db]

In order...

Power Chords
Cables & Interconnects
Cable Lifters

and then the rest....

 

[highfigh]

I had a guy come onto the store where I worked (he came in fairly regularly but I don't remember him EVER buying anything) and he asked if I have Cramolin. I said that I did at home and he told me that I should put some on the plugs of my power cords. He said it makes the sound more transparent and the bass tighter.

I need a new green magic marker for the edges of my CDs.

The batteries for my interconnects are the wrong brand.

I don't have enough Cat5 and need to braid it so I can make more speaker wires.



I understand it all so clearly now! It's not the equipment or proper selection, it's all of the myths that go with it!

 

[lsiberian]

SQ is most influenced by the source.

There are some CDs that just plain suck. There are some mp3's that are amazing but not available on CD. Ultimately it's the music itself that matters most.

After that it's the speakers because most women don't let treatments go up in the room.

 

[mtrycrafts]

In order...

Power Chords
Cables & Interconnects
Cable Lifters

and then the rest....

What was I thinking of, but of course. I am getting forgetful

 

[mtrycrafts]

http://www.zoundshearing.com/customers/zoundsdifference/fidelitysound/[/url]

http://books.google.com/books?id=MZDu1Sti69kC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=High+Fidelityl+Hearing+Aid&source=bl&ots=89olBWfUIw&sig=QmkX5YoQIxw3y3TcnqqKOGmEbN0&hl=en&ei=wivESrjIDoKN8AbXkelJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5901

http://www.nal.gov.au/Import web articles/DB _ high fidelity.htm

Thanks, good and interesting links. that is progress with the hearing aids

Here is another link, interactive:

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

[highfigh]

Thanks, good and interesting links. that is progress with the hearing aids

Here is another link, interactive:

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

I have seen that chart- did you find it at Home Theater Shack or SVS?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have seen that chart- did you find it at Home Theater Shack or SVS?

I think I picked it up at AVS most likely

 

[PENG]

I don't think we can do the ranking in generalization. For example, I have a DVD player that no one would use it to play CDs but it plays DVDs fine. A $200 7.1 AVR is going to influence your listening experience more so than your $200 speaker will.

For high end gear (definition?), amplifiers could easily rank the lowest and the speakers and source recordings top, along with the acoustic environments.

For line level sources, without any processing bypassed, the preamp would rank even lower than the amp. A preamp itself without processing is just a power amp that does not have to handle much current and voltages and for line level source it actually attenuates more so than amplifies.

 

[highfigh]

I don't think we can do the ranking in generalization. For example, I have a DVD player that no one would use it to play CDs but it plays DVDs fine. A $200 7.1 AVR is going to influence your listening experience more so than your $200 speaker will.

For high end gear (definition?), amplifiers could easily rank the lowest and the speakers and source recordings top, along with the acoustic environments.

For line level sources, without any processing bypassed, the preamp would rank even lower than the amp. A preamp itself without processing is just a power amp that does not have to handle much current and voltages and for line level source it actually attenuates more so than amplifies.

No great electronic equipment will ever sound great through bad speakers but great speakers can reveal much more detail with mediocre electronics. We seem to agree that most amplifiers basically sound the same, right? Once the power output is adequate for the application and speakers, that part is done and won't improve unless a lot of money changes hands. No great speaker will ever sound great in a room with bad acoustics and we agree on this, too. Mid-fi speakers will sound better in a good room than great speakers in a bad room, so that's handled. Next, we come to the sources. As long as the recording software is good, the player will need to be good enough to let the recording quality to come through. Bad hardware won't let a great recording sound the way it should. OTOH, using a great system to play cassette and 8 track tapes is a waste unless that's hte only source material available. Then, it truly is a case of "shut up, enjoy the music and stop listening to the equipment".

A preamp can't drive speakers so it's not a power amp- it just provides gain. The volume control attenuates but when you compare the preamp's input sensitivity with its output voltage, it's not attenuating.

 

[Xargos]

For line level sources, without any processing bypassed, the preamp would rank even lower than the amp. A preamp itself without processing is just a power amp that does not have to handle much current and voltages and for line level source it actually attenuates more so than amplifies.

I would say that this depends on the design of the preamp. Even without processing, I've seen preamps add more noise into a signal than I've seen power amps add. Given a passive preamp there wouldn't be much worry, but passing a line level signal through additional active electronics before hitting the power amp can, on occasion, be detrimental.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... Given a passive preamp there wouldn't be much worry, but passing a line level signal through additional active electronics before hitting the power amp can, on occasion, be detrimental.

Actually, you do have a lot to worry about passive preamps; you have to worry a great deal about its output impedance. If it is tied into the volume control, it has a variable output impedance and certainly can cut the higher frequencies down to 5kHz and cut it a lot above that. No wonder people can hear and report such changes

 

[Boerd]

Which components of an audio system do you believe have the greatest influence on the final sound.
Here is a list, based on my best guess (please critique).

1. Speakers (greatest)
2. Room
3. Pre-amp
4. DAC
5. CD player
6. Amp (least)

Thanks!

I like your question; below are my 2c
First thing first IF any of the above are VERY poor quality all the bets are off. Now let's say you spend your money wisely without buying poor quality in any of the above.

Id say:

1. Speakers (spend 50% of your budget)
2. Room treatment (15% of your budget). Most people never do this.
3. Amp (15%)
4. preamp (15%)
5. cables (5%)
...
6. Use an old DVD player with 24/96 DAC - they are under 80$ these days. Even better - if you already have one - keep it.


And please take the DAC out of the list. These days even the cheapest DAC have distortions that are not audible. I cannot stand the snake oil in the DAC industry (and cable industry for that matter). I used to listen to my Vienna Acoustics Beethoven using a 3 years "el cheapo" DVD and I was happy. I tried a 1k$ DAC (Benchmark) and believe me there is no difference. Buy beer for that money and enjoy your music.

 

[njedpx3]

People debate power cables all the time too. Do they make a difference. ....

Power Cables have absolutely no effect. If added they would be on the bottom of the list.

 

[njedpx3]

I think pre-amps/processors are becoming increasingly influential on SQ. With the proliferation of room correction algorithms and on-board, customizable EQ, pre-amps are really able to do a lot to mediate speaker-room interactions and tailor sound to match listener preference (which is ultimate arbiter of perceived sound quality).

I kind of agree and disagree. The auto-setup with a mic that measures distance equalizes sound delay times) and equalizes dB levels are probably the two features that have improved SQ the most. Most of the other features are superflous to improving SQ; they only change the user's listening biases/preferences.

 

[KEW]

Thanks for all of the responses. They really give a pretty good sense of what is and what is not consensus as well as some other factors I need to consider.
Keep 'em coming if there is more to be had.

 

[skers_54]

I kind of agree and disagree. The auto-setup with a mic that measures distance equalizes sound delay times) and equalizes dB levels are probably the two features that have improved SQ the most. Most of the other features are superflous to improving SQ; they only change the user's listening biases/preferences.

I agree with you on level-matching for sure. Delay can be really important, especially if the setup is asymmetrical. However, it was my impression that room equalization software like Audyssey aims for a flat FR (some implementations, such as Denon's, allow for a slight roll-off of the highs). This can dramatically improve objective measurements correlated with SQ, even in well-treated rooms. I do agree that things like Dynamic EQ and Volume are more targeted at meeting preferences than absolute SQ.

 

[jostenmeat]

I agree with you on level-matching for sure. Delay can be really important, especially if the setup is asymmetrical. However, it was my impression that room equalization software like Audyssey aims for a flat FR (some implementations, such as Denon's, allow for a slight roll-off of the highs).

It aims for the target curve chosen. AFAIK, every receiver company that sports this tech has both of the curves you are referring to: Audyssey curve (with rolloff), and flat. NAD takes it a step further, and introduces a third target curve, designed by Paul Barton of PSB.

This can dramatically improve objective measurements correlated with SQ, even in well-treated rooms. I do agree that things like Dynamic EQ and Volume are more targeted at meeting preferences than absolute SQ.

Well, this is a can of worms. How would you define absolute SQ? OK, what I want to point out is that nearly every movie title you own is using the same mix designed for the theater. So, if we are to assume that we are all supposed to listen to reference level, then yes we wouldn't need dynamic eq/volume anymore!! However, I'm pretty sure only a small minority of folks listen anywhere close to reference level. You see, our human perception of different frequencies at lower volumes is not perceived equally. Look up Fletcher Munson curve.

 

[skers_54]

It aims for the target curve chosen. AFAIK, every receiver company that sports this tech has both of the curves you are referring to: Audyssey curve (with rolloff), and flat. NAD takes it a step further, and introduces a third target curve, designed by Paul Barton of PSB.



Well, this is a can of worms. How would you define absolute SQ? OK, what I want to point out is that nearly every movie title you own is using the same mix designed for the theater. So, if we are to assume that we are all supposed to listen to reference level, then yes we wouldn't need dynamic eq/volume anymore!! However, I'm pretty sure only a small minority of folks listen anywhere close to reference level. You see, our human perception of different frequencies at lower volumes is not perceived equally. Look up Fletcher Munson curve.

The Onkyo receivers that I've seen only have one curve, but these could be the exception rather than the rule. By absolute SQ, I mean maximum fidelity to the source. The bass boost applied by dynamic eq isn't accurate in a strict interpretation, as it disproportionately enhances the low frequencies. I've seen the FM curves, which show that this tech has a solid basis on good science. It is a definite subjective improvement with movies, especially at lower/more reasonable volumes. I'm not entirely sold on it for music as it makes the bass feel a bit heavy on some material. I don't like to run my sub hot though, so others will definitely disagree with me. It is good to have so many useful technologies at our disposal which allow us to dial in the sound to meet listener preference (which at the end of the day will determine if the tech has practical utility).

 

[JerryLove]

Power Cables have absolutely no effect. If added they would be on the bottom of the list.

Yes, that was my point. The fact that something is debated does not mean that it actually makes a difference. All non-defective power cables are identical in how well they function.