Which IC is more important?


I don't know if this has been addressed specifically before, but I couldn't find it searching thru the cables forum. At the risk of being redundant, I'll put this forward to the community.

Looking at a CDP - line stage - amp sequence, which of the two IC's is more critical? Any reason, scientific or other, as to why? What have your experiences been in using different IC's in these places (ie. type of IC, quality, cost, etc.)?

Looking forward to hearing about your experiences.
mapleleaf
Thanks for your comments Sean. I appreciate any constructive criticism. At least you didn't resort to juvenile antics to admonish. I would like to be a positive person here, and not one prone to hissyfits or negavitism. Always enjoy your input, and read your link with great interest.

I've got a really simple system. I have a source, line stage, and amp. So theoretically, swapping cables here should be "equal" in terms of impact, right? I've found that this is not the case, so there must be synergy or something here at work.
"The upstream cable is always more critical because it affects everything downstream." No! It really comes down to how each component integrates with the rest of the system. And some links in the chain are far more critical than others. All this said, in my own experience, I can put a cheapo $30 Canare or Belden XLR 1m cable between my phono (ARC PH2) and line stages (ARC LS5II) and a multi-thousand$ NBS Statement XLR cable between my line stage and amp (ARC VT130) and this works incredibly well. If I reverse these cables, all of the magical ambience and resolution brought on by the NBS is GONE! The line-to-amp link is just a lot more critical in the context of my system. It's that simple. Whatever science or theory or salesmen or magazine reviewers may tell me, my ears tell me a different story to what I would have expected. And putting another expensive cable in the phono-to-line link makes a very minute difference....so I don't bother with one in this link. Of course I would love such a cable to bring on another level of performance here, but it just didn't happen. Was I disappointed? A little as I wanted more....and yet I saved a lot of $$ in the process. Maybe it's the output/input impedances between the connecting components, the location of the components in the room, etc., I don't know. But I don't make any blanket statements as to what is "best" or "always". You just have to borrow a few different brands, perhaps many pairs of each, start with one brand throughout and then swap a link at a time and see what cables works well in each link. Some cheapo cables just might outperform very expensive ones or at least be so darn close that you recognize the value. Don't be afraid to put a $30 cable in between $10k of components. And don't be afraid to put a very expensive cable between less expensive components. The prices on some of these products often has nothing to do with their musical virtues so try all combinations you can. And don't be concerned about staying with one brand of cable. That's another misnomer. Hope this all helps.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link...

This is the wisdom for all hi-fi. However, having said that, the lower the level of the signal - turntable to phono - the more *sensitive* it is to cable effects. You can easily see how this works by comparing that to the balanced 600ohm studio lines... the studio signal is much LESS effected by the wire/cable than is your phono. (which is why they use balanced 600 ohm lines in the studio...)

The other caveat, for which there is a section on my website, is the idea of "complementary coloration". In short you can not compensate, or correct/unfilter once you have filtered. A cheap, *poorly performing*, interconnect is a type of filter...

BTW, afaik, "IC" = Integrated Circuit... we need something else to call Interconnects... maybe ICNs? ICTs?? But not
ICs... :- )

_-_-bear