advertisement


Which component has the biggest effect on the sound?

The factors that have the potential to influence sound quality can be grouped into categories, two which we have seen raised so far:

1) System components (from initial transducer(s) via amplification to final transducers)
2) Environmental Factors (from room size/shape/orientation, to listening position, to mains quality, to external noise levels, etc)

Other factors not yet raised (but probably lying in wait, ready to pounce) could be grouped into Listener Factors (such as hearing response, hearing disorders, energy level, overall health, etc.) and Source Programme Factors (performance, recording, mastering and pressing).

Each category has its own factors and each factor has the potential to influence the perceived sound quality.

In some instances, modifications/tailoring in one category can help alleviate the influence of factors in another category (here's Rodney's pet DSP - a component element - can help alleviate room node problems - an environmental factor).

Avoiding the initially-not-so-obvious pitfall of a too narrow definition would require a title that read "Which factors have the highest potential to negatively affect sound quality?". The OP's initial explanatory post could also have included the categorisation and examples of factors in an attempt to avoid confusion (yeah, right!).

Conversely, if the OP only wanted discussions around System Components, the original title could have been prefixed with "Ignoring Environmental, Human and Programme Factors," to take off the table any deviations into by-pass roads as has happened.

Hindsight has always offered 20:20 visual acuity... ;)
 
Tony L said:
I don't agree. To my ears modern speakers are more characterful than ever. This is partly down to the fashion of using far too-small drivers in far too-small boxes and attempting to redress the inevitable thin and feeble sound with reflex port shenanigans etc, and it's also partly down to the desire to get a product to sound 'impressive' in a quick A B shop dem. I've witnessed many of this type of dem in my time and it is almost always the most hyped-up presentation that wins favour with the nodding dog types who start using words such as 'coherence', 'timing' and 'detail' to describe a thin and forward presentation that bares little if any connection to that heard from a real instrument or in a studio control room. I'd go as far as saying the 'flat-earth' approach of audio marketing has actually moved audio further away from natural music in the home than at any time since stereo was invented. Much modern audio is hopelessly compromised IME. My error is that I grew up in a house with a grand piano in it and have spent a lot of time in recording studios so unfortunately I know what it should sound like!
Click to expand...

I'd have to say I haven't heard ALL modern designs, but my experience doesn't match yours Tony - and I also spend a fair amount of time in a studio.

My current Focals sound far more in keeping with my past reference JBL's and TAD's than the Tannoy Kensingtons did or for that matter do vintage JBL's or any old speaker I have heard.

I'd also say I've owned numerous Proacs as well as Merlins, ATC's and Dynaudios and none of them fit the view of events that you put forward.

Studio monitors such as Westlakes, Augspurgers, Dyns or ATC's do not have the rose tinted view of events that many consider to be historically accurate.

I'm sure there are thin sounding speakerettes out there.But there are also large numbers of wonderful loudspeakers that offer less distortion, higher power handling, and greater FR extension than anything that has gone before.

Again, we are issuing sweeping generalisations when it comes to speakers.

FWIW, many claim "Focal" are "harsh" "cutting" horrible and "thin".

The ones I use are the most natural loudspeaker I have owned and are considerably more truthful than the Kensingtons I had before and others.

I'm sure some Focals sound horrible - hell I've heard lots of them that do. But some are exceptional, much like it is with modern loudspeakers in general.

I should perhaps add that you know I have always been an advocate of the big speaker and large bass unit. And I remain so. But I would rather have a natural small speaker than a large one with obvious compromises for most of my listening.
 
Evil Emperor said:
If you have played piano for some time, you easily hear the difference between a Fazoli and a Steinway, irrespective of the acoustic environment. Similarly, a guitarist can hear the difference between a pre-war and a more modern Martin, or hear where Jimmy Page puts down a Telecaster and picks up a Les Paul.

This isn't about 'mojo' or imagination. It's a training issue, regardless of whether that training is formal or ad hoc in nature.

We have listened to audio systems for years. How can there not be a similar learned component to all that listening?
Click to expand...

I almost made the same point myself! Couldn't agree more.
 
Joe Hutch said:
You can take it as read that anyone selling stuff will suggest that the stuff they sell is important, whether that be 'conventional' components, or cables, or souped-up computers, or room treatments.
Click to expand...

Ironic, then, that PFM's only resident 'souped-up computer' salesmen is such a big advocate of 'source last'.
 
We talked about this at the bake-off. Most of us there agreed that the vendors probably start off with what they like and what they believe in, and then they stock things that reflect that. Therefore we shouldn't automatically question their sincerity.
 
maxflinn said:
The room must be considered as it's important, but a component it ain't.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. The whole system starts at the source and ends up in your head. Speakers need to be placed to best assist your system. Changing the room is similar to changing the speakers. You can change the room by altering it's volume, shape, absorption etc. I would even suggest the chair you sit in is a component.

Please disregard this if you listen in a field.
 
mudlark said:
Of course it is. The whole system starts at the source and ends up in your head. Speakers need to be placed to best assist your system. Changing the room is similar to changing the speakers. You can change the room by altering it's volume, shape, absorption etc. I would even suggest the chair you sit in is a component.

Please disregard this if you listen in a field.
Click to expand...
Walk into your local HiFi shop and ask them for a good quality room, then tell us what they said ;)
 
Let's use a cricket analogy in an attempt to hack through this vine-infested jungle...

Title: Which player makes the biggest contribution to a side's performance

Analogy Elements:

a. Player = Component
b. Contribution = Effect
c. Side's Performance = Sound
d. Playing Field = Listening Room

In a cricket analogy, can the "playing field" be classified as a "player"?
The answer is obviously a resounding "No!", but, some players play better on on some fields and in front of some crowds - i.e. in an environment that better suits them - and the side's performance benefits therefrom. But this still does not make the "playing field" a "player".

In the same way, the listening room and its potential synergy with components can positively influence the sound - but as "Environmental Factors" and not by being "Components".
 
This is getting confusing.

Let's just re-interpret the thread title as "Which thing has the biggest effect on the sound?" to avoid the semantic jungle.
 
maxflinn said:
Walk into your local HiFi shop and ask them for a good quality room, then tell us what they said ;)
Click to expand...

Units such as the Trinnov were designed to recreate an engineers home mastering studio, and enable them to take that room with them anywhere in the world.
Keith.
 
The reason I don't like the "tight" component definition is because too many people spend too much money trying to sort room problems by buying different components.

I suppose my answer should have been to bat on and on about room acoustics. (OOps already done that)

I prefer a car analogy. I would like a Ferrari, but I live in the country with narrow lanes, lots of bends and very few straights. The lanes can have pot holes, dirt and even ridges down the middle where grass grows. So what's the best car? A Ferrari, no, a VW UP!.

The components and the listening room are to be taken together at all times.
 
mudlark said:
The components and the listening room are to be taken together at all times.
Click to expand...

Once again this is overegging the pudding as it suggests certain components will suit certain rooms , save for speaker size it really doesn't do to choose your components on the basis of the room . What is an LP12 room as opposed to an SME room ?
 
You can have any size loudspeakers you like if the room has been properly treated or you can adjust electronically the bass output.
Keith.
 
Purite Audio said:
You can have any size loudspeakers you like if the room has been properly treated or you can adjust electronically the bass output.
Keith.
Click to expand...

A] I don't believe this -
b] I don't believe electronic adjustment will not **** up the sound
c] large speakers would look ridiculous in a small room .

You can disagree with a and b and you will , but c is a universal given . :p
 
DevillEars said:
Let's use a cricket analogy in an attempt to hack through this vine-infested jungle...

Title: Which player makes the biggest contribution to a side's performance

Analogy Elements:

a. Player = Component
b. Contribution = Effect
c. Side's Performance = Sound
d. Playing Field = Listening Room

In a cricket analogy, can the "playing field" be classified as a "player"?
The answer is obviously a resounding "No!", but, some players play better on on some fields and in front of some crowds - i.e. in an environment that better suits them - and the side's performance benefits therefrom. But this still does not make the "playing field" a "player".

In the same way, the listening room and its potential synergy with components can positively influence the sound - but as "Environmental Factors" and not by being "Components".
Click to expand...

The downside to this statement is cricket shares the dubious distinction with golf of being the only games that would be improved by being played in a minefield.

But that aside, I agree
 
Gerald said:
A] I don't believe this -
b] I don't believe electronic adjustment will not **** up the sound
c] large speakers would look ridiculous in a small room .

You can disagree with a and b and you will , but c is a universal given . :p
Click to expand...

b is also a universal given and more so than c.
 
Usually it is low bass which has the most obvious and deleterious effect on SQ, smaller loudspeakers simply do not produce low enough bass so less of a problem.
I use Genelec and Grimm active monitors in a relatively small room , both companies use different methods to deal with room effects, but the result is tight muscular bass from 16Hz up.
Keith.
 
Gerald said:
c] large speakers would look ridiculous in a small room .
Click to expand...

But ridiculous is fun:

11732716493_e5879f505d_o.jpg


Everyone should try it some time.
 
That Tony is a rather handsome room [ except the wire down the middle ;)] and those speakers look good and unobtrusive . Now if they extended to the ceiling then I would suggest they would look ridiculous .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top