|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.25.70.1
As we all know almost everything can make a difference in the sound of our audio systems. However, some components contribute more and others less to the overall sonic character.
Assuming the electronics are all working properly, in your experience which components do you feel make the BIGGEST difference in YOUR system?
Lets also assume that you are not using a lossy compression scheme on your music files.
Please rank the following in order:
AC Power Cables
Computer
Linestage if you use one
DAC
Digital Interconnect Cable to DAC
Speaker Cables
Power Amp(s)
Integrated Amp if you use one
Analog Interconnect Cables
AC Power (Filters, AC Regenerators, dedicated line, etc)
Here's an example ranking with 1 being most significant, 2 next, and so on:
1) Power Amp
2) DAC
3) Linestage
4) etc.
5) etc.
Yes I know, nearly everything makes a difference but..... You MUST place the gear listed above in a ranking for YOUR SYSTEM and NOT reply with some sort of "it depends on this" or "it depends on that" sort of answer. Please, just rank order YOUR components in YOUR system as they are today.
P.S. I deliberately left the speakers off for a couple reasons. I personally believe the speakers make a huge difference combined with placement and room acoustics. Many of us are stuck with what we have. Some of us use headphones, near field speakers, or incredible speakers in incredibly nice dedicated audio rooms. I figured we would eliminate the speakers and room in the rankings and just focus on the electronics and cables.
I'm truly curious to know how inmates will rank their gear. Thanks!
Follow Ups:
1) Integrated amp (IMO, as important as speakers)
2) DAC
3) Speaker cables
4) AC "conditioner"
5) Analog Interconnect Cables
6) Digital Interconnect Cable to DAC
7) Computer
1. Power Conditioner
2. DAC
3. Pre-amp/processor analog
4. Quality recording
5. Power Amp/s
6. Source
7. Interconnect
8. Speaker wire
For me:
1- Speakers
2- Front End (turntable/tonearm/cartridge or tape deck) - analog only
3- Preamp - includes phono and/or tape stage. Is No. 2 on a digital system
4- Digital front end (CD player/music server)
5- Amp
6- Speaker cables
.
.
.
10- Analog cables
.
.
.
27- Power cables
Of course the SYSTEM as a WHOLE matters but my post was asking how you would rank the individual components in YOUR system in order of how noticeable its contribution is in overall sonic quality.
Here's my ranking of components for MY system. Thanks to those who read the entire post before replying.
1) Integrated Amp
2) DAC
3) Analog Interconnects
4) Speaker Cables
5) Digital Interconnects
6) Computer
7) AC Power Regeneration / Dedicated AC line
And I deliberately left the speakers out, explained in my original post. And of course source material is all important but I'm more curious about the equipment in my inquiry.
This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with my choices. I just wanted to get an idea of how inmates rank their components.
Thanks!
First, I reread your original post twice before responding right here.
your post gives NO internal indication about it's relevance to PC audio. or digital at all.
You made major assuptions about what folks would 'read into' your sloppy post. then you failed to do your own request. i hate people who ask for some analysis and then totally FAIL to bother to do any of it themselves.
So all in all you fucked yourself out of reasonable answers due to your own failure to fully explain what you were going on about, and your own lazyness.
So if that is a good enough kickass response.. let me know..
Geez Elizabeth, who's the one that sounds annoyed? ;-)
.
.
.
Since you were so specific about what you wanted I figured it was to aid statistical analysis of the results.
I expect the report on my desk before sundown!
Rick Mitt
My fault for not saying 'in the context of computer audio' up front but I didn't anticipate my post being moved from PC Audio to General.
I was simply trying to get a feel for how others ranked their components within their systems.
"I was simply trying to get a feel for how others ranked their components within their systems."
Oh... I thought it was more general, a matter of believed typical sensitivity rather than the perceived qualities of extant components.
Let me ask you one quite unrelated: do you ever measure the electrical performance of components, especially while auditioning them? If yes, what; if no, why not?
Rick
No, I don't measure electrical performance of my gear as I do not have the appropriate test equipment.
"No, I don't measure electrical performance of my gear as I do not have the appropriate test equipment."
Thanks, just idle curiosity...
Rick
That's not to say I wouldn't mind owning an Oscilloscope, Signal Generator, Spectrum Analyzer, and Distortion Analyzer. But this whole audio thing is just a hobby for me. Plus I have a day job that keeps me busy.
In my system its been:
1) Integrated amp
2) DAC (or digital source)
3) AC Power cables*
4) Power Regenerator*
5) Everything else
* The power regenerator effects everything in the system, but power cords effect the regenerator.
That said, in my *current* set up, with my switching amp. AC cords are #2. They have enough of an impact that they can make the amp sound either fantastic or completely unlistenable. Really.
So for today:
1) integrated amp
2) power cords
3)DAC
4) Regenerator
Jack
4) regenerator
Jack
Its a audio system not a amp filter DAC etc but a whole and all should be selected to work together. Your kind of thinking leads to a less synergistic system since you focus on the parts not the whole.
kept explaining to him and another 'expert' inmate this in the Computer Audio Asylum board, but they kept insisting that it is the dac that is 'most significant' and that the computer source doesn't matter 'much'.
Now that his post has been moved here, I hope that the weight of opinion will persuade them to have a more open mind.
It's a case of whether an inmate is more interested in Computer for Audio or in Audio Quality from Computers.
No kidding it's the WHOLE SYSTEM that matters. I've said that too.
However, certain components within a system must have more of an impact on overall audio quality than others.
You can't seem to grasp that concept.
decide what is BS.
It seems that it is you.
.
1 DAC
2 Music Server
3 Power Amp
4 Line-stage
5 Digital Cable
6 Analog cables
7 AC Power
8 Speaker Cables
Julien
"There's someone in my head, but it's not me"
I mean yeah one can add some part that gives one an 'Ahhah!' moment, but it actually may be some other part which is the gem.
The part changed may just have been the bottleneck hold all the rest back.
And, the new part may be better, but not as good as some other parts are..For example, my Sony SCD777ES SACD player with Redbook was only as good as my DAC, with the Sony output to the DAC. Until my last fix up bits, which allowed the Sony to show it is in fact a little better than my DAC.
No way can I say one part allowed that. It was a LOT of stuff upgraded before that was hearable. Everything from crystals, to antistatic foam, power cables, (Even using a noncontact A/C checker and wrapping and grounding the VAC standard power umbilical..) just changing the output A/Cfrequency for the digital stuff to 110hz instead of 60hz(using the PS Audio P600 with the upgrade chip) The pigtail tweak on negative speaker terminals..
And having a good really clear neutral amp, Bryston 4B-SST2
Edits: 08/04/12 08/05/12
The qusetion carries no meaningful answer and is just down to soemone's combination, of which there can be many.
Speaking purely computer audio
1) DAC
2) Preamp (could easily be #3)
3) Speakers (could easily be #2)
4) Amplifier
5) Computer including software
6) Cables
1) CD player
2) Line stage
3) Power Amp
4) Analog interconnect cables
5) Power conditioners/cords
6) Speaker cables
This applies to both of my systems, by the way........
In the SETs, the DHT one uses has the most effect on the sound I hear. I hear much greater differences between 300B, 2A3 and 45 amps than within each tube category. On the one amp I have that plays both 2A3s and 45s, the sonic differences are large.
Observe, before you think
1.Computer (especially the OS and player software, psu, etc.)
2.DAC
3.Power Amp(s)
4.Speaker Cables
5.Analog Interconnect Cables
5.AC Power Cables
5.AC Power (Filters, AC Regenerators, dedicated line, etc)
Though this is stupid :)
Did the computer make such a difference because it really does or because the other parts of the system allows the difference to come through? For instance if I had the behringer amps and some zip cord, would i even notice when the computer is undervolted or under clocked??.....
Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
the question is moot
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
I'd put the recordings first.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
.
Compared to the things you've excluded or just left out.
I just don't see the need to change stuff, particularly not regularly. The equipment and its technical performance only matters to me in what I can hear to matter, on classical music well recorded as in real stereo. Then that knowledge really does matter, like getting really good FM started with having a really good sounding national FM network and a modernised valve tuner.
I still go to concerts, and I hear good choral singing and an organ at least once a week at church.
Any changes have been to make that kind of thing better at home, and given that it's good enough to have musician friends give it the 'listening from another room' realism tick on recordings of me singing with a choir and instruments. IE 'is that Tim singing in there' to my wife by my choirmaster last year .... what do I need to change?
Incrementally improve, ? maybe.
Frankly what I see happening among the 'buyer of new' group in audio is an increasing focus on lesser and lesser issues while the elephant in the room - the music/recordings in the genres that most listen to - get worse and worse.
Certainly less faithful to the idea of music making in the same space and at the same time, no matter how it's miked and on to how many tape tracks. No interplay, one player and singer at a time, which was the GUTS of American popular music forms.
'lost in audio'
Digital sure ain't perfect if it needs all this massaging. I may one day decide that putting all my CDs on a server is worth the tedium involved, and the price of a laptop and DSP SW and an ADC.
I'm not persuaded that high speed copying sounds right. I don't expect I'll ever rip my LPs though.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
1. FM Antenna
2. Radio station
3. Great analog source
3. Everything else...
;)
And not just any antenna mind you. It must be a rhombic ;-)
Yes, a rhombic!
Thank you, sir!
Power cables
Preamp
AC conditioner
Source/DAC
IC
Isolation/vibration control devices
Amp
Speaker cables
All the components besides my preamp benefited from p/conditioning.
Power cables and IC transformed my system's sound, so they rank high in MY experience.
1) Upgraded caps in amp and speakers to Duelunds in inexpensive Cambridge components. Otherwise, not true hi-fi IMO, just a start at it. I replaced an electrolytic (yuck!) coupling cap with a pristine Duelund Cu CAST cap. Man, what a difference! Amp = $200 Cambridge Topaz, not bad really in stock form with good voicing. Cap and only using amp section hugely opened up transparency. Speakers = $300/pr. Cambridge S-30.
2) Amp (the rest of it in Gainclone-style topology)
3) USB DAC
4) Speaker wire
5) AVC preamp (I don't change this one anymore, so perhaps #1 is possibly better stated.)
6) JRiver MC17 with all the controls and choices and deep bit depth to get it tuned best
7) Homebrew USB DAC cable - 2 shielded separate runs: Power and Signal
8) Interconnects (could be a lot more on a bigger budget, but I found nice sounding ones designed well, on the cheap.)
9) Computer with high speed and a lot of RAM and a fast large disk drive.
Worst thing is the two wire electricity I have. Hum free, buzz free, but unreliable and noisy spikey line. Minimal filtering for that. No special AC cords.
1. Speakers (Thiel 7.2s)
2. Amps (Manley NeoClassic 250s)
3. Room treatments (Tube Traps, etc.) and speaker placement
4. Speaker and Interconnect cables (MIT Oracle V3)
5. CD player (Wadia 850)
6. Power cords
7. Vibration control
8. AC power filteringI use no preamp since the DAC has a digital volume control.
I put the speakers in since they are the most important and determine the final sound.
Everything else builds on their capabilities.
Nos. 1., 2. and 4. seem to act synergistically.
As far as computer audio, I store iTunes on my computer all ripped from CDs in Lossless to play on my iPod. That's about it.
Edits: 08/05/12 08/05/12
My rankings on relative contributions to sonic realism, I think all 9 I listed are important BTW, even #9 as I have heard the sonic benefits of aftermarket of AC cables especially in the deep bass and the feeling of "being there".
I put Speakers and headphones back in as in my experience they are the most important after software.
1) Sonic quality of software ie: SACDs, DVD-Audios, LPs, downloads, etc.
2) Source components: SACD player, turntable, tape decks and computer.
3) Speakers and headphones
4) Pre-Amp
5) Power Amp
6) Speaker Cables
7) Analog Interconnect Cables
8) AC Power Conditioner
9) AC Power Cables
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
interesting ranking Teresa.
I'm curious to know if you bundled the DAC in with the computer.
I run USB into the DAC and find that the DAC ranks higher than the computer itself in overall sonic character. But hey, that's just my experience in my system.
I ranked everything in relative order even though I believe everything is important to the final sound.
I use the internal DACs in my SACD/DVD-Audio player which was designed before DSD out was offered on HDMI. I use the analog outs anyway, as that is my what tubed AMC pre-amp uses.
I have tried the Bryston BDA-1 DAC which I reviewed awhile back using Toslink Optical outs. I couldn't use USB as at that time the Bryston was restricted to 44.1kHz with USB. Anyway with the Toslink Optical output the Bryston would not do 176.4kHz or 192kHz even the the specs for the Mac Mini says it will and the Bryston also claims up to 192kHz in for Optical. So I was restricted to 96kHz. I have Leopard OS 10.5.8 on my 2007 Mac Mini have been told that my Firewire 400 will get me up to 192kHz out.
While in many areas I like the Bryston DAC, I didn't like it well enough to buy it at industrial accommodation prices, I don't like the sound or comfort level of 16/44.1 music files lossly or lossless but those types of files sounded better with the Bryston over Mac Mini internal DAC. However with 24 bit music files up to 96kHz (since I couldn't do higher Bryston) in some ways I preferred them with the Bryston when upsampled by the Bryston to 192kHz in some sonic areas, in others I actually preferred the internal DAC in the Mac Mini using Monster Cable stereo mini to 2 RCAs one of the auxiliary inputs of my tubed preamp, the output of the Bryston DAC used another auxiliary input on my preamp using Monster Cable interconnects. Here is my review of the Bryston BDA-1 DAC if you are interested: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/bryston.htm
When comparing the internal DAC to an external DAC remember your computer's output volume is disabled when using the "digital outs" to an external DAC so check your computer's output volume when unplugging the digital cable and re-plugging the analog cable. If your computer is like my Mac Mini it lowers the volume from 100% to 50% which drastically decreases the resolution, I have discovered my computer's output volume MUST be set at 100% for good sound quality, anything less sounds terrible. Thus volume in Core Audio, System Preferences and in iTunes MUST be set at maximum level (100%) and never lowered as it will drastically reduce resolution, this is because one loses resolution when decreasing volume in the digital domain, Instead control the volume with your preamp.
I recently went from Apple Lossless to AIFF as I found the sound quality superior with my 24/88.2kHz and higher music files, so it seems the internal DACs are pretty resolving, in some ways the sound is smoother than my modified SACD/DVD-Audio player, however I still think SACDs have the finest sound quality. So I am not really dedicated to computers. I have not given up on DACs for computers and will be trying one of the new DSD DACs that also do up to 32 bit 384kHz that are coming out soon. If I am going to pay real money, I want a DAC that is better than the internal DAC in ALL sonic areas, not just some.
Still I think software is the most important, with LPs that means 45 RPM usually sounds superior to 33 RPM and I like 180/200 gram pressings the best.
With Reel to Reel 7˝ IPS and 15 IPS sound the best, especially if the are real time duplicated on mastering tape.
With SACDs I prefer DSD or well made analog recordings especially using tubes. DVD-Audios I like 24/96 and 24/192 from either PCM or well made analog recordings.
On the computer my favorite music files are 24/96 copies of audiophile LPs. However Reference Recordings 24/176.4 HRx's actually sound the best, along with MA 24 bit DVD-R's, and Chesky 24/96 downloads from HDTracks.
If I knew this was the post on Computer Audio Asylum I would not have played, as physical formats are more important to me.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Those AC power cords are pretty darned important. I tried to listen to my system without using them and I couldn't hear a blessed thing, so I guess AC power cords are the most important thing.
The speaker cables are pretty darned important too. I tried listening to my system without them and once again, I couldn't hear any sound at all, so I guess speaker cables must also be the most important thing.
Them there analog interconnect cables seem to be gosh darned important to. I removed all of them and cut on my system and be durned, I couldn't hear a thing again. So I guess those interconnect cables are the most important thing.
So I hooked all this mess back up and then removed my preamp, and if you are guessing that I couldn't hear anything, you go right to the head of the class, because I couldn't hear anything, so I guess the preamp is the most important thing.
So I put my preamp back in place and removed all of my various and sundry power amplifiers, and this may be getting a bit like a broken record (or at least a record with one of those big ol' hairy skips in it) and tan my hide, I could not hear a blessed thing. So it's pretty obvious my power amps have to be the most important thing.
All those things made the BIGGEST difference, because when I removed them to do one of those ABX test thingamadoos, all the sound went away. And that is a pretty big difference all right. No mistaking that.
I wonder if maybe that's why it's called a "system"… I'll have to do some more of this testing and get back to you on that.
.
A great post!!! Yesterday, at the CAS, someone told me that he loved the deHavilland amps, but not the Sonist speakers that they played!!! Yes, it's always about the whole system
If you don't like the speakers how can you like the amp?
Alan
"I couldn't hear a blessed thing..."
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Heart, brain, central nervous system, circulatory system, etc. Oh, wait! I guess they're ALL critical!
There is a similar futility of such rankings when applied to audio components. I have built too many systems to still hold the philosophy that such and such component is inherently/universally most important in a system.
I have heard cable sets which have perceptually been more impactful than some amp changes, sources which have been more impactful than preamps or DACs, etc. How do you suggest one ranks the plethora of variables associated with componentry?
" I have built too many systems to still hold the philosophy that such and such component is inherently/universally most important in a system."
But if forced to make choices, are you saying that you can't?
I too have tried many different components in my many systems over the years and have come to the realization that some do make a bigger difference than others.
the following, "However, certain components within a system must have more of an impact on overall audio quality than others."
By what criteria have you determined this? Is this simply conjecture? Or is this received wisdom you have accepted?
I could make several lists of rankings based on the Power paradigm, the Signal Flow paradigm, the Manufactuter Quality paradigm. Give me a cogent rationale, aside from cost savings, why I should rank classes of components.
Those who really know system building have told you correctly that such ranking leads to the practical result of building inferior rigs.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
As an example, I have consistently found that my analog interconnects make a bigger difference in sound quality vs my speaker cables.
Similarly, I have found that various DACs and CD players make a bigger difference in sound quality than my computer itself acting as a music server 'transport', assuming the music file formats are the same.
I have found that the phono cartridge and phono preamp have consistently netted bigger gains in audio quality vs the tonearm and turntable.
These are just some observations that I have noted in MY SYSTEMS. I was curious to know what others have experienced.
I have not found it to be the case that typcially the ICs make a bigger impact than speaker cabling, etc. I have concluded thus since I compare entire sets of cables, which tend to confer similar benefits (or not, if the cabling is not so hot) across the board.
Obviously if one is using a mixed set then a particular IC might indeed confer better results due to the IC simply being a superior cable (due to geometry, total gauge, conductor material, etc.) than the speaker cabling overall. That would not be surprising at all and would be consistent with my findings. If that is what you are doing then I would agree that they might be "ranked", however inappropriately. The difference would not be due to the inherent superiority of all ICs vs. speaker cables, but the better quality of the IC being used vs. the speaker cabling used.
I could demonstrate in my rig such a faux ranking, and then reverse it using the opposite cables from each brand.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
While informative your response is also a sort of evasion. You say:
"I could make several lists of rankings based on the Power paradigm, the Signal Flow paradigm, the Manufactuter Quality paradigm."
Well, why don't you rank the paradigms then and give the list for the top one? Or are you saying these all yield equivalent results? In the latter case, how do you pick a system for yourself and what is the list for that?
Or, since you likely have at least one actual system for yourself, what order do you put its parts in as it stands, regardless of other possibilities. The question asked is fairly clear however limited or whether or not it yields results you find tuseful.
The only thing I am "evading" is wasted time, imo. The reason I continue to discuss it at all is that perhaps some others will have their eyes opened to the futility of such rankings.
A ranking on power would perhaps place the power conditioner and robustness of power supplies for particular components, then maybe the quality of cabling, especially power cables, ahead of other considerations. I happen to at this time eschew component power conditioners and filters because I have found them to be as subtractive as additive to the sound.
A ranking on Signal Flow would largely follow the signal path, especially starting with the source. I have over the years grown far more appreciative of the absolute need for an extremely good source, so if I were to rank components by class the source would likely come in at or near the top. But then again, there can be several elements to a good source. Currently I use for non-file playback a transport, DAC and am reviewing a reclocker. All three are critical, and selecting which one would be most critical would be nothing more than preference, and would say nothing about the class of products in general.
The Manufacturer Quality paradigm is every bit as much a slippery slope. How does one compare the manufacturer quality of, say, a source to an amp when a manufacturer specializes in componentry? There is no way to conduct a direct comparison, so the selection of one as superior due to quality is entirely subjective.
It doesn't matter if any of those ranking schemes are better than another, because they are all fruitless. Not a one of them can be used to put together a superior rig with consistency; they all assure mediocrity as they assume some classes of components will be superior to others. The person working with that premise one would likely put less emphasis/money on the classes of components deemed less impactful, which would assure a far less than stellar result.
You are far from putting together a convincing argument why anyone should spend the time to rank classes of components.
How do I select components/put a system together for myself? I assume every single piece of gear which is in the signal path, whether box component, cable or speakers, is absolutely critical. I conduct simple comparisons between preamps, cable sets, DACs etc. Winners stay, losers go (Within reason, as some incredible pieces I simply cannot afford.). By simply upgrading each link in the system over time the system becomes marvelous. The key is an absolute rejection of any small/incremental improvement, as that will keep your rig closer to marginal results than push it ahead toward superior results.
I add an additional criterion; every piece I own I have used in multiple systems consisting of other gear I use. The equipment I deem worthwhile to hold is good for not just one rig but for two or three rigs which I can assemble. I don't spend time worrying about how good a component is compared to an entirely different class of components. I spend time pursuing a better example of the component in question. THAT is one method of moving consistently toward a superior rig.
I have had dozens of systems over the years and currently have four. My reference system has multiples of elements so that I can build high quality variants of my favorite systems. The supposed ranking would change for each rig, which is another example of why such lists are fairly worthless.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
I develop my systems much as you do and don't find ranking among different elements of the chain important either. My point was that the reason to do so was that that is what the op asked. Otherwise it would seem to me you should simply not participate rather than, joining the likes of fmak, scold him for asking. If he wants to spend time on it and others join him, who are you to say he shouldn't, that is, who asked you?
Abe is comfortable with cordial debate on topics, so I answered him to prod some thinking/discussion. I wasn't intending to scold, but using strong logic/argument to engage him as I feel strongly he is wrong. He didn't seem to be upset by it in his response to me. He could have just as easily ignored my statement, which he may have done if he were merely taking a poll and had no desire to debate in a friendly fashion the topic. :)
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Exactly; I have found that it is no use discussing anything with the guy who wants everyone to rank to his list in the hope that someone would agree with him that the DAC ranks No 1.Silly questions deserve no answers
Edits: 08/06/12
Although reductionist thinking is suitable for some purposes/ desired outcomes, I generally prefer not to misuse it.A systemic approach is more my style... and I think more appropriate for building an audio, er, system.
Cheers.
“As long as we have any intention to be right… we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest.” Charlotte Joko Beck
Edits: 08/06/12
1)Linestage
2)Analog Interconnect Cables
3)Power Amp
4)DAC
5)Computer [or transport]
6)Speaker Cables
7)AC Power
8)Digital Interconnect Cable to DAC
9)AC Power Cables
OK! No qualifiers stated per your request. But they exist in droves...
Rick
(1) USB Transport
(2) DAC
(3) Interconnects from DAC to Amp
(4) Amp
(5) Speaker Cable
(6) Outlet / Dedicated Line
(7) Power Cords
(8) Conditioner
(9) digital sources (CD Player and Squeezebox)
1, speakers
2. preamp
3. power amp
4. dac
5. computer
6. cd player
7. cables
1) Upgrade the caps in my Maggie speakers
2) DAC
3) power amp
Computer and cables are not at all important.
My answer:
Speakers
cartridge
tonearm
tt
transformer (for mc cartridge)
phono amp
preamp
amp
connections
NO DIGITAL
My top ten
1)Speakers
2)Speakers
3)Speakers
4)Speakers
5)Speakers
6)Speakers
7)Speakers
8)Speakers
9)Speakers
10)Recordings
Alan
Speakers all the way!
CD players all sound the same when you use digital outs
and a good Amp or receiver doesent add much it anything to the sound
unless its built specificly to sund a certain way.
I dont buy expensive cables, Dac's and Mr roboto looking expensive CD players or penile extotic speakers and tube amps...
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: