twl: I agree with your parameters of discussion, here, this thread's context. Simply making a point, concisely as I knew how.
I disagree with you, however, and respectfully, that because electronics are a "pass" through, they somehow are fundamentally different in the context of the value, "important", and even given our parameters here. Your position relies on two assumptions: (1) that electronics only "pass" information, which itself rests upon the assumption that other components do not, and (2) that such "pass-ing" consitutes a perfect transmission from source, or rather, that it should.
First, the only thing "fallacious" is the assumption that any constituancy of matter, any component, can perfectly pass through "signal." While this may be an absolute to aspire to, it does not presently exist in the applications of physics, nor in the practice of construction of stereo gear, the later application dependant upon the limitations of the former. When superconductivity is invented, then we can have that conversation. But, until then, all matter that we rearrange into technology and that we then use as a conduit for energy, in its various forms, is effected by the transference of that medium's transference abilities. In other words, limited transference capability as a matter of course, or a matter of our present limitations of implementation, does not equal "tranmute."
All of our stereo components are insufficient energy transducers, or transmuters, or transferors, or whatever latest action verb we want to come up with to describe the same basic action. We pass signal through these created matrices of matter and that action defines its output. In this sense, all componenets are "euphonic" of actual sound moving through space, in the sense that their imperfect material deviation results in a similar deviation from the voices "accuracy", "musical-ity", etc.
The skill is then in constructing a mix of such deviations into a synergistic whole. And the the question then becomes, if a component is not presently by its nature subtractive towards perfect transfer, then do such "euphonic" deviations that do exist produce an experience that reflects, while not perfectly reproducing the sound absolute, the mind's experience of that absolute; can the whole exceed IN EXPERIENCE NOT MATERIAL THEORY the material limitation of its parts?
My answer is, yes. And I might add, apart from ideas - as in how you put your stereo together towards your eventual experience - my strong intuition is that you do too.
As for source being most important because it does not transfer, the same deviation arguments above apply to it also. As I said, from where you are at, yes, the source change produces the most change, but that does not hold true at all symmetries of system construction. |
Bob and Asa, I think I am getting a better handle on what we are really discussing here. I think(tell me if I'm wrong) that we are really discussing whether it is worse to have a signal degrading bottleneck somewhere in the system, as opposed to an information-limiting source item. Am I getting this right?
If so, I will try to address that point, as well as the other ones.
First, Bob, I really don't disagree that often times a speaker has the most difficulty being an accurate component. As I stated in my other post, I feel that all the components are vital to the system, otherwise the system wouldn't work at all. And if the speaker really does suck really bad, then even a great source won't help it. However, most speakers don't suck all that bad that they will mask an improvement in the source. Here is my point: Most speakers will do a relatively decent job at reproducing the majority of the sound. Maybe not great. But the higher priced speakers aim primarily at covering a wider bandwidth, to give true fullrange capability.If your definition of a better speaker means wider bandwidth, then I may agree that going to a true fullrange speaker from a limited bandwidth speaker will give more of a change than improving the source. Notice that I said "more of a change", and not "sounds better" or "more musical". This is an important distinction. I don't have crappy speakers, and I certainly understand the need for good ones. When you make the speakers better, more signal information will be passed, and they will make the system sound better. I have no problem with that at all. I simply make the statement that getting more signal information to the speakers will make them sound better too. But it will do it in a different way. The speakers, when fed a better signal, will respond with a better sound. Also, the signal, when going through a better set of speakers will respond with a better sound.
The question is, which is more important? And this comes back to the point I made at the top of this post. Is the degrading of the signal by the downstream components more critical than feeding the system with a better signal from the source. My answer is they are both important. If you have a real bottleneck anywhere in the system, you have a problem. From my personal experiences and tastes, I find that even lower priced speakers will easily convey the emotion of the music, when fed with a good source signal. They may not give as much detail, or frequency extension on either end, but they will allow the basic emotion of the music to be heard, unless they are flat-out horrible. This is because enough quality information is available to them from the upstream components, that the prime ingredient of the music gets through: the emotional content. When a poor source is used, then often, not always, the emotional content of the music is robbed of its life, and even the best and most expensive speaker cannot restore that, no matter how extended and detailed it is. And this is much more prevalent today than one might think.
So perhaps this is a "chicken and egg" thing, but I still contend that for a given normal system, that the source will provide more "musical" improvement than speakers will. I will grant that upgrading speakers will give more extension, possibly, and greater detail. I think alot of the 2 sides of this discussion relate to the types of source used. At the risk of bringing digital and analog into the discussion, most digital users are more in the speaker camp, and more analog users are in the source camp. This is because there is a greater "delta" in the sound of the source when analog is introduced into the scenario. Up to this point, digital has only progressed just so far. It is not even in the same galaxy with good analog. So for digital users, the differences in source don't seem so great. But when you hook up a turntable, then some shock starts to set in. I hate to bring that into the discussion, but it is unavoidable, and foolish to ignore it.
Asa, I agree, and I stated carefully, that electronics "at best" can pass the signal perfectly, and I did not intend that to mean that the "best" case is ever attainable. It was simply a reference to the best (im)possible scenario, and not the normal scenario. My wording was not intended to imply that the "best" case of perfect pass-through is attainable.
I also agree with your point that system synergy is very important and can be a very large factor in the overall presentation of the music. As are all of the other components, the room, the recording and everything included in the musical experience.
Again, I agree that this may not hold true to all system types and symmetries, especially regarding the case described above, regarding analog and digital sources.
So, at the expense of appearing stubborn in my position, which I probably am, I feel very certain that this position is correct, when all things are considered. I reiterate that the order of importance is the same order that the signal travels through the system, and each component will define what the next component in the chain is capable of delivering, in the "best case". The next component's job is to degrade the signal in the least possible way, and pass it to the next component. Since the source defines the quality of the signal entering the system, it provides the benchmark of what that system is ultimately capable of reproducing. From there on down the chain, there is only a string of degradation, and the job of the downstream components is to degrade it the least amount possible.
Notwithstanding this, I do agree that a horrible bottleneck somewhere down the chain, can destroy a large part of the signal that even a great source is feeding in. In this case, it is entirely possible that removing that offending component and replacing it with a better one can let more of the signal through, and make more of a difference than the source improvement.
Now we come to the quandary. Do we think that average downstream components will pass enough signal to reveal a better source, or do we think that great downstream components will make up for a lesser source? This is the "chicken and the egg". From my experience, the average components will reveal enough of a better source to make a more musical result, than a great speaker or amp passing more information from an inferior source.
I do appreciate both of your interesting comments and points of view, and it has made this a most enjoyable discussion. Bringing any opinion under strong scrutiny is always helpful to one's self-evaluation regarding said opinions. |
TWL, I agree with your statement about good arguements about held opinions to be helpful in gaining more knowledge. I suspect, however, that we are going to continue to disagree on this one - too bad that you had to bring up the digital vs analogue comparison, though.
Still, I think that we are both striving to reproduce (or perhaps create) musical moments with our audio systems, but since we start from different premises, we use different means to achieve them.
Salut, Bob P.
|
Bob- Twl's reference to digital IMO serves as an example only -- I used it in my post for, probably, the same reasons.
IMO, the goal we all have is to achieve balance between components' capabilities in a way that no component reveals annoying weaknesses in another...
In this respect, the changes that analogue upgrades/setting up bring about usually are (IME) more immediately perceptible downstream -- hence the use of this example. To the point where changes are subjectively perceived as being more & more subtle -- let's say that we have made improvements to the point where we reached the limits of the downstream system...
Ultimately, however, speakers are our "primary communication source" with the system, as you correctly point out. So, practically, we can only improve the system to the limits of what these speakers tell us (or don't)-- or, improve upon the speakers... Which MIGHT bring us back to the drawing board, looking for amps to drive said new and better speakers. Etc.
OTOH, I agree that many speakers manage mid-range reasonably well (Twl) and would add that, most speakers err considerably (as you note) when it comes to reproducing info on both extremes -- especially the upper highs. Sigh.
At this point, I've come to believe that the "most important part" is clearly system dependant. However, if I were to set up a system FROM SCRATCH, I would now look at the two ends of the chain first... |
twl, yes, we are talking about bottlnecks. I think your position, "source is more importaant" holds more water, so to speak, when couched in the top-to-bottom context, i.e. logically, how can anything be important downstream if there is not sufficient water going downstream? Yes, this is a valid argument, and it is the case in many mid-level systems (this assuming that sources in beginning systems are relegated out of necessity, along with all others in that chain, to the point that strict positions on this issue are reasonably untenable), and it may sound true logically, but it may not hold true, experiencially, in higher level systems - as an argument that is.
And this gets back to my point - that no one here seems willing to address - that as the curve of learning increases, what is most "important" changes as a general rule. Here, twl, I'll prove it to you:
At the similar risk of ruining my chances for a career in the diplomatic corp., :0), the reason you cited analog/digital dichotomies, is the same reason that supports this position; namely, an analog system, and yes gentlemen even at the highest reaches, is superior objectively in harmonic depth and spatial continuity and superior subjectively in terms of increasing the mind's receptivity to the message ("Musicality") when compared to a digital system. In analog systems at the highest present reaches, harmonic and spatial nuance become most "important" because they are the qualities left to strive for; the other components are now ready to tranalate those qualities that analog is capable. In a digital system, these final qualities are still screened at the source, and so an analog devotee - and let's face it, twl, that's where you are coming from, the context for your observations - will say that the source is most important. And, here's the important point, in your context, at your symmetry of observation, you are correct. But for the digital devotee, at his symmetry of observation he is correct; people who have all digital systems will hear a greater "importance" in speakers. And, in fact, in such level systems a speaker may very well be the most important component; because, since the digital source is not translating said qualities to analog's degree, the speaker is to be focused upon as the most "important" source of change (and you will note that this allegiance increases as system spatial/harmonic/musicality decreases, i.e. with all SS/digital systems, and on a decreasing scale towards beginner systems, which is why I said way back when that speakers are most important in beginner systems).
The problem you have, twl, and I surely respect your restraint and evident maturity and poise, is that you are not willing to say what you believe (!). We all are socialized, in our post-post modern world, towards an egalitarianism that, in its attempts at radically respect all others, engenders an assumption into everything it says; namely, an assumption through ommission. In this case, the failure to state expilicitly that hierarchies exist on this curve.
Simply put, twl, you think the source is most important because you are more advanced. And, no, I don't mean just with equipment, because their choices are simply a reflection of the mind that chose them (and for thos knee-jerk radical cultural relativists out there, this is mind related to musical receptivity, not awareness/compassion, although twl seems like a nice guy to me...). You are more advanced in your ability to be receptive to the musical message, and this reflects your choices of gear, its synergical makeup, and your position that the source is most important.
And the second problem for you is a second misplaced assumption; namely, that you can make your argument in the first place (assuming that you make it to persuade/teach - and don't tell me you are not a teacher, twl, I'll hit you ten times with a bamboo stick!). Why do/can I say this? Because knowledge is state-specific, meaning that the knowledge you have at your level can not be translated/transferred/tranmutated, :0), to lower levels; you understand lower levels, but they do not understand you, in logical/language terms. Its like a guy in a plane: at one altitude (one symmetry of observation) the coast appears crooked, but higher it becomes more strait. Both observations are correct at their given symmetries, but the higher has seen and knows both. It is not that one is wrong, one is right, but sliding symmetries of observation.
Twl, you can huff-and-puff all day about "source-more-important", and you are correct from where you are, but all lower levels of observation will hear argument through a prism that hears "lower level is wrong." And their defense from this orientation (and if you look back closely, you can see this is a defense, not an challenge to your position...) IS valid, from ITS symmetry of observation. That position is partial, and in their own exclusivity, they are mistaken, but I have a question for you: are you similarly mistaken in the exclusivity of your position?
How can you teach from exclusivity as an originating orientation?
You do not need to negate all levels below your own to perfect your own; that is the next level. That is how you can teach even more. |
