How much difference does it make?

[gordec]

I have learned a lot of great information from the CA/AS community since joining. I went completely network based frontend and started to use better cable and power supplies. After playing with a lot of streamers and linear power supplies, I came to the conclusion that, to my ears, software, power supply, connection interface (network, USB, optical) and cables make up about 10% difference in overall sound quality. Headphone/speaker probably make up 30%-40%, amp 20%-30%, DAC 15%-30%. I have absolutely no problem spending a lot to get the most out of that 10%, but perhaps the best value is spend on the down stream components that could make a bigger difference in the overall sound quality. 

 

Do others feel that their frontend makes significantly more than 10% difference to their overall listening experience. If so, how much. I'm talking about sound quality alone, not the software/user interface. 

[crenca]

Your percentages are too general. On cables for example there is no way they are 10% of the sound past a minimum spec standard - particularly digital cables as you cite.

 

But yes transducers make more difference than anything else...

 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

DSP, masterings - along with speakers - are the biggies

 

your "%" will change as $$ increases

[sphinxsix]

I always used to say that speakers plus speakers/room interaction easily make up 80-85% in overall sound quality. Get this thing right and you are close to your audio heaven. Then comes the amp, next - source and cables but I also used to say that in many cases it's quite easy to find two cables which make bigger difference than the difference between two sources which doesn't mean that the source has no meaning in this regard (they also can sound quite different from each other). 

I'd simply suggest a listening test of chosen components, if possible in your listening room. This should tell you everything.

[marce]

Speakers/Room biggest effect.

Cables should have no discernible affect on an analogue signal or digital signal transmission.

I have perceived some difference in sources when I had CD players and with DAC's, but never blind tested so I can't exclude bias. With digital sources feeding the same DAC I have never noticed any difference.

[STC]

Room acoustics is everything. It can make lousy system to sound great. Just like when you sing a bathroom where the acoustic changes how you sound and more preferable. 

 

The acoustics in the bathroom are basically perfect to start a little private concert.

 

https://psychology-spot.com/singing-in-the-shower-benefits/

[PeterSt]

As usual my controversial answer:

 

Room maybe 10% (in the end irrelevant if it is not too bad to begin with - avoid swimming pools and the like).

Power amp 5-10% as long as it measures well (rare to begin with).

Pre-amp, 100% detrimental. So ditch it. Same counts for any aftermath volume controls.

DAC ~25%.

PC / hardware source 30% or more.

Software 25%, but in combination with PC / hardware source and even DAC. This should not count to get to 100%.

Digital cables 15%.

Analogue cables 10%.

Speakers left out. *)

 

Add up: 10 + 5 + 25 + 30 + 15 + 10 = 95% (see power amp 5-10%, counted as 5%).

 

Do notice that the software works in conjunction with the DAC. Thus, what is omitted in the DAC (filtering) now happens in software. This is explicit.

 

Also notice that the software also works in conjunction with the PC and that the operating system in the end is an integral part of the software. At least this is how it has been set up explicitly. Change the OS means change a kazillion of software settings.

 

Only a year ago or so, the spread of 25% and 30% from DAC and PC respectively, would have been 50% and 5%. But this changed, getting more and more control over the PC and what happens in there for real. And mind you, very large threads are running about this (not our audio PC but in general) so it can't be ignored.

 

*) I leave out the speakers because it is not fair to incorporate them. Also they are the most hard to judge. This already counts for myself, because I really don't drag in new speakers for comparison. They will matter - they will be the most crucial, but still they become irrelevant looking at the other elements. I am serious here. Two quotes from customers which subscribe to a general thinking of mine:

- Peter, I like to cancel the order for the DAC. Your new software version sounds so damn good that I don't need a new DAC any more.

- Peter, my wife and I were 100% sure to buy new speakers and we had the (crazy) budget for it. It now appears that we don't need new speakers at all. You DAC does everything.

 

Mind you, these messages can be found in the Phasure forum of various kinds and from various angles. They are also not uncommon and you surely won't go look and find them. Point is that each of the elements wildly influence, and how they do relatively I laid out above. Please keep in mind my message about that list being subject to change (say each other year).

 

In my own forum you will also be able to find how people nag that we should produce USB cables while I refuse because they won't make a difference and the $1 cable provided with the DAC is OK to begin with. I did-not-believe in any of this impossible sh*t. Until people nagged so long that I sat back and started with it after all. All is spelled out historically on the forum. 1000s have been sold, one was returned (plus one who announced it in advance). It can't be ignored.

 

I'll stop here. But please be informed that we produce 100% of the whole audio chain (apart from power cords), so I should be able to know. It could be not so common to see a head to tail SNR of 135dB (thus from PC-software running on a PC to output of power amp). Some will say that this is totally unnecessary. Perhaps that is correct. But maybe it allows to hear through matters. Perhaps this is also why more and more we end up in "tweak" areas which seemed impossible to influence in yesteryear.

Maybe we just don't want to know.

 

Peter

 

 

[PeterSt]

50 minutes ago, STC said:

Room acoustics is everything. It can make lousy system to sound great. Just like when you sing a bathroom where the acoustic changes how you sound and more preferable. 

 

This  is very funny. I agree with that.

 

50 minutes ago, STC said:

Just like when you sing a bathroom where the acoustic changes how you sound and more preferable. 

 

Also funny. I agree again.

 

51 minutes ago, STC said:

The acoustics in the bathroom are basically perfect to start a little private concert.

 

Apart from that I just said to avoid swimming pools (and I did not read your post !).

 

So try to believe in the other way around now (I suppose nothing new for you because I said it before):

 

The better the system, the less room treatment is necessary. It even is so that it removes any audible standing waves (low frequency as we know them, and high frequency as most do not know it - buzzing).

My room consists of over 50% glass in the walls. The remainder is hard material. Only the floor carpet (few mm of height) is soft.

 

So the "funny" thing is that you just said the same thing. But most 99% probably you won't agree with my stances ...

haha

[STC]

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

My room consists of over 50% glass in the walls. The remainder is hard material. Only the floor carpet (few mm of height) is soft.

 

Peter, you are pulling my leg! right? I thought you listen with 🎧. Anyway, I am not going to argue with you or anyone anymore after having a revelation with my son’s new car audio.   

 

Me just stating what’s observable and repeatable anywhere.  

[Rexp]

For an average high-end system ($30k):

Amp=40%

Source=40%

Speakers=20%

 

 

 

 

[Foggie]

It just boggles the mind, an order of magnitude, how the room could possibly be irrelevant.  its not even conceivable for that thought to remotely enter my brain.  IMHO of course.  But everyone's experience is what it is...

[NOMBEDES]

When I sing in the bathroom.  It is just horrible.  Further, when I attempted to learn the harmonica, my cat would howl like a banshee.  How is it that a person who loves music has no talent for playing an instrument or singing?

[AnotherSpin]

16 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

When I sing in the bathroom.  It is just horrible.  Further, when I attempted to learn the harmonica, my cat would howl like a banshee.  How is it that a person who loves music has no talent for playing an instrument or singing?

 

This is a prerequisite for loving music. Have some friends, members of local philharmonic orchestra. They hate music.

[sphinxsix]

2 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

When I sing in the bathroom.  It is just horrible.  Further, when I attempted to learn the harmonica, my cat would howl like a banshee.  How is it that a person who loves music has no talent for playing an instrument or singing?

I'd rather ask how come so many people who have no talent for playing an instrument, singing or composing are big music stars who made millions of $$$ (in particular if we consider the fact that people like Mozart died in poverty).? 

As for your cat howling while you played harmonica - did you consider the possibility that it expressed its enthusiasm for what he/she heard.? 

 

[jabbr]

12 hours ago, PeterSt said:

But please be informed that we produce 100% of the whole audio chain (apart from power cords), so I should be able to know. 

 

Wait, do you grow those mushrooms?! Can I get some?

[gmgraves]

On 6/21/2019 at 9:09 AM, gordec said:

I have learned a lot of great information from the CA/AS community since joining. I went completely network based frontend and started to use better cable and power supplies. After playing with a lot of streamers and linear power supplies, I came to the conclusion that, to my ears, software, power supply, connection interface (network, USB, optical) and cables make up about 10% difference in overall sound quality. Headphone/speaker probably make up 30%-40%, amp 20%-30%, DAC 15%-30%. I have absolutely no problem spending a lot to get the most out of that 10%, but perhaps the best value is spend on the down stream components that could make a bigger difference in the overall sound quality. 

 

Do others feel that their frontend makes significantly more than 10% difference to their overall listening experience. If so, how much. I'm talking about sound quality alone, not the software/user interface. 

I’d say that one would be lucky if their interface cables made up even one percent of their total sound quality, and that would likely be mostly wishful thinking.

[GregWormald]

OP--

IMO there is really no way to put percentages on *sound quality*. Sound differences are another matter--that's mostly about room and speakers.

 

Quality however starts from the source, wherever that is for you. Once the quality is lost then nothing downstream can get it back.

 

For instance I've just started cleaning my LPs (one source) with an ultrasonic cleaner and the improvement in *sound quality* is very significant; and not just from the reduction in audible pops and clicks.

 

Another example--I sent my active speakers to the manufacturer to be upgraded to the current model, which retails about $30,000. While they were being done I listened through a very old amp and some bookshelf speakers (carefully chosen at the time but probably about $2000 total if they were made today) and the music was still very listenable even though the overall sound was very different. Same sources.

[HIFI]

Listening room, treatment, speaker and seat placement can make budget audio resolve very well.  I say invest in room first or start investing in room now.  Don’t buy any more equipment 

[Rexp]

49 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

OP--

IMO there is really no way to put percentages on *sound quality*. Sound differences are another matter--that's mostly about room and speakers.

 

Quality however starts from the source, wherever that is for you. Once the quality is lost then nothing downstream can get it back.

 

For instance I've just started cleaning my LPs (one source) with an ultrasonic cleaner and the improvement in *sound quality* is very significant; and not just from the reduction in audible pops and clicks.

 

Another example--I sent my active speakers to the manufacturer to be upgraded to the current model, which retails about $30,000. While they were being done I listened through a very old amp and some bookshelf speakers (carefully chosen at the time but probably about $2000 total if they were made today) and the music was still very listenable even though the overall sound was very different. Same sources.

Yes the source is key, why is this so hard for some to understand, maybe they never heard a high-end source? 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Yes the source is key, why is this so hard for some to understand

 

Because for a close to life time we were spoon fed with the speakers being the most important factor ?

Maybe back in the days they were (say that I am from back in the days 😀) but back in those days the source just could-not matter as much as today. I am not talking about the wax cylinder era (that would make me quite dead) but from the LP-only era, yes. But look how easily we drift apart ... half of people swears that LP is the by far very best compared to digital. Well, they should dedicate the speaker the most important in the chain. I think.

If that makes sense ...

[Rexp]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Because for a close to life time we were spoon fed with the speakers being the most important factor ?

Maybe back in the days they were (say that I am from back in the days 😀) but back in those days the source just could-not matter as much as today. I am not talking about the wax cylinder era (that would make me quite dead) but from the LP-only era, yes. But look how easily we drift apart ... half of people swears that LP is the by far very best compared to digital. Well, they should dedicate the speaker the most important in the chain. I think.

If that makes sense ...

Actually back in the day when Linn were at the forefront of high-end, they and other UK Manufacturers always advocated spending the majority of budget on the source. With digital isn't it the same? 

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Actually back in the day when Linn were at the forefront of high-end

 

This could be no coincidence for a TT manufacturer, right ? haha

But still it would be true, yes. However, the difference to be made there is "bland". So whether you have the groove etc. noise at -30dB or -35dB (just making up some figures which will be relatively close) - that matters 5dB. Today, with digital, we talk well over -100dB. Well, maybe. Maybe it is -80dB only (look at poweramp specs). But there's the thing - this is a difference of 20dB already. This, while a few days ago I showed better than 130dB (SNR). Oops. And this has to be in the source as well because that was about the complete chain.

 

So for SNR only ... -35dB (at best ?) vs -130dB.

or what the subject was about to some extent:

-25dB to -35dB vs -80dB to -130dB (think source only). Thus 5dB of diifference vs 50dB of difference in the source(s).

 

Btw, a speaker doesn't even make noise. It can show a lot of THD though. A lot (like well over 1% in the lower regions or 5-10% at best when you thought to add a sub woofer).

Wait ... so a speaker can matter just the same ?

or wait more ... the source thus does not matter because the speaker is so poor at it (THD) ?

 

Maybe this is why I counted out the speaker. It is unfair. Sure, mine does better than 0.3% THD at 19Hz +/- 0.5dB or even 0.3% at 17Hz +/- 3dB (89dBSPL). Brag brag brag brag. But this is far from normal and should be counted out. Of exceptional importance, but still not to be counted. Not realistic. Just as the 118dB sensitivity is not realistic (though still real over here).

 

So what sort of remains is that SNR of 30dB of back in the days (I forget the cassette tape decks to stay positive) which won't have improved once it reaches the speaker. That speaker, in my view, in that context has prevalence for many quality aspects. I mean, the difference between 10% THD and 0.3% THD would still be there, also in the old days. A tweeter would do 16KHz or 30KHz (today only full bandwidth drivers may have a problem there because they are not-so-full bandwidth at all). Today ? no, that too existed back then.

I am drifting off; When the source is lousy, the end of the chain receives only lousy and probably even more lousy. Never better. Today's sources vary wildly and are of way better specs than the speakers anyway.

 

Now choose. Technically I am not really able to (as in : how should a THD+N of 0.00090 sound better than a THD+N of 0.04 (standard (NOS) unfiltered Redbook), while the speaker is at 0.3% at the very best for LF (and well over 1% for almost everybody) ?

It's just a different "THD" I'd say (digitally/technically wrong, vs mechanically impeded <-- more natural ?).

[semente]

18 hours ago, PeterSt said:

It could be not so common to see a head to tail SNR of 135dB (thus from PC-software running on a PC to output of power amp). Some will say that this is totally unnecessary. Perhaps that is correct.

 

I have also come to accept, from (my comparatively limited) listening experience and no designing/building experience, that system S/N or (and/or?) noise-floor and audible S/N or (and/or?) noise-floor are not related as one would expect, so what's generally accepted to be limits of audibility for noise and for distortion(s) shouldn't be referred to in the context of equipment measured performance.

[STC]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

they and other UK Manufacturers always advocated spending the majority of budget on the source

 

Linn discovered that by making better TT, it improved the sound. He discovered it by placing his TT in another room which improved the sound. His reasoning was and correctly too for mechanical device like a TT that the sound from the loudspeakers causes degradation in the playback. 

 

He continued to emphasis on good source to sell his TT and his initial reasoning was misunderstood or intentionally used to sell a better TT. The source here was the reference to a better vibration immune TT. 

 

In room, the ratio of sound from the source ( which is now the speaker) is always mixed with room acoustics. Even in nearfield listening, you will have at least 10% of room sound reaching your ears. In normal listening environment it is more than 50 percent and in concert hall it is about 90 percent. The improvement there can be clearly audible with the same source. There are many videos of sound before and after room treatment. 

 

 

 

 

[semente]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Linn discovered that by making better TT, it improved the sound. He discovered it by placing his TT in another room which improved the sound. His reasoning was and correctly too for mechanical device like a TT that the sound from the loudspeakers causes degradation in the playback. 

 

He continued to emphasis on good source to sell his TT and his initial reasoning was misunderstood or intentionally used to sell a better TT. The source here was the reference to a better vibration immune TT. 

 

In room, the ratio of sound from the source ( which is now the speaker) is always mixed with room acoustics. Even in nearfield listening, you will have at least 10% of room sound reaching your ears. In normal listening environment it is more than 50 percent and in concert hall it is about 90 percent. The improvement there can be clearly audible with the same source. There are many videos of sound before and after room treatment.

 

He (Tiefenbrun) tried but could never make good speakers? 😶