Garbage in - Garbage out?

I agree with Albert regarding Pbb's comments i.e. he hit it on the head. If one did "SFTA", you would find that i've said all along that your system is only as strong as your weakest link. It is the system that you're listening to, not any one component. One "killer" component does not make a system high performance. Even a combination of multiple "killer" components does not mean high performance. If that were the case, we wouldn't see so many "flavour of the month" products for sale, would we ??? Sean
>

Having worked in high-end audio for several years, I absolutely concur with Rel - the transformation of mechanical energy to electrical (cartridges) and back again (speakers) are the areas most subject to the introduction of distortion and spurious noise. Even a very good speaker will have distortion levels several orders of magnitude greater than your average amp. How many of you would buy an amp that had 5% distortion at rated output? ALL of the speakers you have ever heard probably had more than that.

And don't even get me started on the foolishness of statements like: "Boy, that new power cable I just paid $800 for made a night and day difference in the sound of my system." Talk about garbage in and garbage out...

IMO it's all important ... and thus funds should be relatively equally split between source, amp and speakers. I'm a Brit, but I remember the "source first" argument was started by Linn, who at the time were manufacturing .... let's see .... turntables ... what a great coincidence !

Unfortunately this means that achieving a significant upgrade is hugely expensive. So I usually forget about upgrading and go and buy some more CDs and LPs.

>>said above by PBB: The fault with the source theory, which harks back to Ivor the Invincible, is that not each link in the chain is equal.

>>said above by Rlwainwright: Having worked in high-end audio for several years, I absolutely concur with Rel - the transformation of mechanical energy to electrical (cartridges) and back again (speakers) are the areas most subject to the introduction of distortion and spurious noise.

IMHO, these are some of the more intelligent things I’ve read here on the subject and when PBB and Albert Porter agree on an issue it’s enough to get my attention! (hehehehe)

The components in the chain do not have the same function from a tech point of view. They are doing completely different things and each technology is at a different state of development. You can’t even approach the subject or say something meaningful from a “front-end” / “back-end” analysis.

Inevitably a discussion that starts with terms as general as “front end” will end with the all encompassing and powerful audio answer: “synergy”. I have started to gag on the word. It generally stops the discussion just where it gets interesting. This started with me about a decade ago in office meetings. Some doe-eyed up-and-comer would say something like “we should combine these departments because the combination has a real fundamental “synergy.” I learned to take it to mean that he/she didn’t know enough to say anything in particular or he/she was smart enough not to say anything that could be pinned down. A smart move!! A real candidate for the board of directors! I think I remember the brokers describing the AOL Time Warner merger as a real “synergy thing.” It's like a magic incantation.

In any event, I've chosen to use the word "Robust." I always liked Juan Valdez and his robust beans and I think it is time to move on from “Synergistic” front-ends to “Robust” back-ends. Just can’t stop progress.

Sincerely
I remain,