Source (turn table, DAC, tape deck, reel-to-reel, etc.), pre-amp, amplifier, speakers. Those are the common ones. Some would also list cables and interconnects.
In every system, one of these components will be the weakest link. In one system, it might be the amplifier. In another system it might be the source or the speakers. And so on...
Why would I name just one?
Please answer my question now - How long is a piece of string?
The weakest would mean one, no?
Noticing that you didn't mention the room acoustics on your list of common ones, I suspect that this won't be a fruitful exchange.
When you state "All components", that would include DAC, preamp, amp and cables. Which one of those available on the mainstream market would "color, or mask the level of clarity in a given system"?
I see you didn't answer my question. Meh. King obtuse doesn't like his own medicine, I see. Not surprised.
All components - including speakers, turntable, cartridge, stylus, tonearm, headshell, CD player, equalizers, tape decks, step ups, and any other components in a system, both passive and active that are in the signal path, can and do add something to the sound that wasn't part of the original recording.
I would if you finish your questioning sentence.
As for your example of the weakest one is...?
As for your example of DAC (part of CD player), preamp, amp and cables available on the mainstream market that would "color, or mask the level of clarity in a given system"...?
EH,
I find it hard to believe you cannot hear a difference between gear.....whenever a component gets changed in my system I can tell a difference, some more so than others but there is always a subtle change.
Whether this is a bias that has totally overwhelmed Your senses or maybe some people just don’t do well with subtlety......your fervent views on the matter have certainly peeked my curiosity. I don’t buy the whole ‘save the world from snakeoil’ bit.....there has to more to it?
I find it hard to believe you cannot hear a difference between gear.....whenever a component gets changed in my system I can tell a difference, some more so than others but there is always a subtle change.
Whether this is a bias that has totally overwhelmed Your senses or maybe some people just don’t do well with subtlety......your fervent views on the matter have certainly peeked my curiosity. I don’t buy the whole ‘save the world from snakeoil’ bit.....there has to more to it?
Bob, some people can not see the color red, others can see ghosts. Some others got angry with you even when you agree with them. What can we say?
Yes, and it is known that would result in multiple fractures to their digits!😀
If something isn’t right it makes me nuts
If something isn’t right it makes me nuts
Last edited:
mb, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what I wrote.
It may take multiple readings to find the answer to that. As for how many, it depends on the individual's intuition.
You wrote (in a round about way) that the room and the speaker are the only things that really make a difference so why bother with the rest.
So what if you find a good combination of room and speaker that allows you to hear differences in other upstream components? then wouldn’t changes to the ‘system’ come into play/question for fine tuning?
So what if you find a good combination of room and speaker that allows you to hear differences in other upstream components? then wouldn’t changes to the ‘system’ come into play/question for fine tuning?
But, the 'original recording' wasn't what the performers and producers want us to hear. What the performers/producers heard on their playback and monitor system was 'the sound' that they thought was 'right' for us to hear, and the sound that they created with their art.
So perhaps you need to start with your playback system and compare it to the playback system (and the room) that the artists used??
The concept of 'original recording' is often mentioned, but it's not as clear as some would think.
All the "picking apart" of what/if/when/how a system sounds in any given enviornment has absolutely nothing to do with the original subject of this thread.
Again, more wandering about, which should be posted and "picked apart" on their appropriate threads, of which I'm sure there are many.
Again, more wandering about, which should be posted and "picked apart" on their appropriate threads, of which I'm sure there are many.
Your glass analogy is one I use, and get criticised for, but it does make much sense.
A great component can sound dreadful in a system because it reveals other shortcomings - I think I am in that position ATM, but it takes a great deal of sorting out, in my case because so much sound bad.
Very careful and disciplined procedures are required to get out of that situation, the immediate and wrong response being to eliminate the component introduced just before it all sounded so bad.
It is important to remember that a perfect component will show maximally the deficiencies of the others, and many may revert to an inferior product because it masks the prevailing faults from other components. This may provide comfort, but go away from accuracy.
Learn to live with uncomfortable truths.