analogue vs digital components, what upgrades do you consider the most worthy of your money?
Hello forumites,
have been lucky enough to try out lots of different components in my hi-fi for the past month (speakers, dacs, amps, cd players and a network streamers). I have honestly come to the conclusion that upgrading a digital component (ie. cd player, streamer or dac) does not yield the same level of satisfaction as an analogue component (such as amp or speakers).
I presume everyone here will agree that speakers make the most difference to any setup. The next in my opinion is an amplifier (I could tell instantly between my Cayin and CA 340a for example). The next would be a turntable.
I was much less convinced that once you add a decent dac to your setup like the dacmagic that it is worth spending a little bit extra cash to go better (like the HRT MS 2+). Its only when you go significantly more do you hear a big enough difference to remember for a long time that you have made a worthwhile difference. I for one thought that adding the dacmagic to my denon 720ae led to a sideways change rather than an upgrade/downgrade. The sound signature just became slightly brighter but I honestly don't think I could demonstrate the difference to anyone who does not know my setup in and out.
What I am trying to say is that changing an analogue component leads to a change noticeable enough for most people, something like "Wow what have you changed in your setup". While changing a digital source leads to a more subtle upgrade/downgrade.
Analogue all the way and primarily the speakers, or in my case headphones. Amps come second and a distant one at that. If my amp fails it will go back for the Fine Tuning service with MF which is £189. The only digital upgrading I will ever do is more processing power and memory for streaming and storing of music files. If my DAC fails, I will just get another equivalent for about £100. DACs occupy a middle ground of digital and analogue.
In my experience I would agree that speakers/headphones have the most dramatic differences. Amplifiers next and CD players very little by comparison.
My Sony CD player, Pioneer CD Recorder and iPod touch with Arcam dock sound indistinguishable through my system when blind listening. With sighted listening I believe there are VERY subtle differences.
However a change of Amp or speakers and the differences are very obvious even the mrs csn tell differences there.
I tend to agree with CnoEvil on this one particularly if you are working with a digital source.
I'm a great believer in getting the source right first, this is essential in an analogue based system.
It doesn't matter how good your Tube / SS amp is if you are feeding it a load of rubbish it is just going to amplify rubbish.
For an analogue-based system my main outlay would go on the cartridge.
If digital - then speakers, amp and source. For vinyl, then source, speakers and amp. IMO only.
TBH, I haven't really played around with many combinations, and my CDP/DAC/amp is an all in one unit, but guess speakers would make the biggest audible difference. I think the speaker amp match is important, so I almost rate them equally. I like the idea of getting a good quality amp that will let you upgrade and use various different speakers (if that all isn't a bit contradictory...)
If digital - then speakers, amp and source. For vinyl, then source, speakers and amp. IMO only.
+1
I agree 100% with Shafesk first, and CnoEvil next.
My experience is that changing speakers and amps and crucially, getting a good match between the two, is what makes the most difference to the sound I like.
With the pace at which digital playback is advancing, I think I can get away with spending a bit less on my CD player/DAC/streamer and a bit more on the amp and speakers. And like Cno, I think the choice of amp is more important - IMO there are more variations in sound quality via changing amps than there are from switching speakers.
I look at this from a different perspective. My perspective is "How much do I need to spend to get world class sound for each of my components?"
The answers I've come up with so far are:
Digital source £200
Vinyl source £2500
Pre-amp £200
Power amp £200 for solid state, £1500 valve
Speakers £500 to £5500 depending on your taste in music and speakers.
What is the world class digital source Lindsay?
I look at this from a different perspective. My perspective is "How much do I need to spend to get world class sound for each of my components?"
The answers I've come up with so far are:
Digital source £200
Vinyl source £2500
Pre-amp £200
Power amp £200 for solid state, £1500 valve
Speakers £500 to £5500 depending on your taste in music and speakers.
+1 (except vinyl, as I know nothing about it)
For the digital source to have a more profound difference, you have to spend a lot more on it than you would on other parts of the system.....and it takes a revealing system to show the full effect of it.
Cno, may I challenge you on that? In practical terms:
Digital sources these days, generally, are so good even at basic level that improvement beyond that level does not bring any practical difference. you will not hear any in other words. So to spend a lot more does not make practical sence, it does not buy you any extra audio performance (only fancy housings, additinal features, functions etc) and if it does it does not matter, unnecessary. and once the digital source is good enough (which is most of the time now), there is nothing the rest of the system can reveal. an everage rest of the system will struggle to match a basic digital source in audio performance. the amps, speakers and their interaction are far (order of magnitude or two!) less perfect than the worst of the digital sources.
speakers, their interaction with amps and rooms is where improvements are usually needed and worthwhile if the issues are understood and tackled properly.
Cno, may I challenge you on that? In practical terms:
Digital sources these days, generally, are so good even at basic level that improvement beyond that level does not bring any practical difference. you will not hear any in other words. So to spend a lot more does not make practical sence, it does not buy you any extra audio performance (only fancy housings, additinal features, functions etc) and if it does it does not matter, unnecessary. and once the digital source is good enough (which is most of the time now), there is nothing the rest of the system can reveal. an everage rest of the system will struggle to match a basic digital source in audio performance. the amps, speakers and their interaction are far (order of magnitude or two!) less perfect than the worst of the digital sources.
speakers, their interaction with amps and rooms is where improvements are usually needed and worthwhile if the issues are understood and tackled properly.
Of course you may - most people aren't usually that polite.
I agree that digital sources are getting better and better and you can get away with spending a lesser percentage of your budget on them than ever before...especially where streamers are concerned.
What helped open my eyes was sitting through a Linn Dem where they moved from MDS -> ADS/1 -> KDS/1 in a Klimax Active system. This comfortably demonstrated to me the benefit of what improving the source can bring to the table...all be it at considerable cost, in a very expensive system. This difference wouldn't have been anything like as obvious in a Majik system.....which is the point I was trying to get across.
I have also heard a DCS 4 box Scarlatti CDP versus an Electro EMC-1UP, and it's the only time that the Electro has sounded broken.
I used to happily listen to CDs on my Arcam DV79, but having lived with the MDS, the Arcam sounds dull and muffled.
So the point I was trying to make, is not that one should spend a big percentage of your budget on a digital source, but that if you do, it makes a considerable difference (if the system is revealing enough). I reckon my MDS would not disgrace itself in a £100k system, but a KDS would sound a hell of a lot better.
So I'm not really disagreeing with you (on practical terms), only pointing out that there is a place for an expensive digital source, where it does make quite a difference.
I have also heard a DCS 4 box Scarlatti CDP versus an Electro EMC-1UP, and it's the only time that the Electro has sounded broken.
Careful I might take offence at this statement 
.
Was the DCS system really that much better 
I have always thought that the main difference between digital sources was the quality of the analogue output stage which is why the EMC1UP scores so well having a fully discreet class A analogue output .
Cno, may I challenge you on that? In practical terms:
Digital sources these days, generally, are so good even at basic level that improvement beyond that level does not bring any practical difference. you will not hear any in other words. So to spend a lot more does not make practical sence, it does not buy you any extra audio performance (only fancy housings, additinal features, functions etc) and if it does it does not matter, unnecessary. and once the digital source is good enough (which is most of the time now), there is nothing the rest of the system can reveal. an everage rest of the system will struggle to match a basic digital source in audio performance. the amps, speakers and their interaction are far (order of magnitude or two!) less perfect than the worst of the digital sources.
speakers, their interaction with amps and rooms is where improvements are usually needed and worthwhile if the issues are understood and tackled properly.
Of course you may - most people aren't usually that polite.
I agree that digital sources are getting better and better and you can get away with spending a lesser percentage of your budget on them than ever before...especially where streamers are concerned.
What helped open my eyes was sitting through a Linn Dem where they moved from MDS -> ADS/1 -> KDS/1 in a Klimax Active system. This comfortably demonstrated to me the benefit of what improving the source can bring to the table...all be it at considerable cost, in a very expensive system. This difference wouldn't have been anything like as obvious in a Majik system.....which is the point I was trying to get across.
I have also heard a DCS 4 box Scarlatti CDP versus an Electro EMC-1UP, and it's the only time that the Electro has sounded broken.
I used to happily listen to CDs on my Arcam DV79, but having lived with the MDS, the Arcam sounds dull and muffled.
So the point I was trying to make, is not that one should spend a big percentage of your budget on a digital source, but that if you do, it makes a considerable difference (if the system is revealing enough). I reckon my MDS would not disgrace itself in a £100k system, but a KDS would sound a hell of a lot better.
So I'm not really disagreeing with you (on practical terms), only pointing out that there is a place for an expensive digital source, where it does make quite a difference.
Cno, now I challenge you to challenge yourself. the differences were most likely imaginary. Differences between adequate digital players are below audible levels.
- Login to post comments
For me, the answers to the questions you pose are not quite that "black and white".
For the digital source to have a more profound difference, you have to spend a lot more on it than you would on other parts of the system.....and it takes a revealing system to show the full effect of it.
IMO. (and I know not everyone agrees), the most important thing to get right, because for me it has the biggest influence, is the amp. This is for two reasons:
- The type (SS / Valve / Hybrid) and Class (A / AB / B / D) can have such a profound effect on the sound, that you cannot for example, replicate a "Valve Sound" with a change of speakers. If I was only allowed to keep one part of my system, it would be the amp; and I suspect most of the Valve owners on here, would place that as most important (and so worthy of the money) in their system.
If you are only talking about a handful of SS amps, then I agree with you.....I suppose I am placing more importance on liking the sound as a whole, rather than how high or low a speaker can go. IMO. The first question to be answered when putting together a system is "should I go Valve, SS, Class A, Hybrid or Active"....not "what speakers should I get". I think if people took this approach, there would be far more satisfaction with what was bought.
- The second reason is again personal....this is the amp's ability to grip and control the speakers properly. I have always said I would rather have cheaper speakers driven really well, than expensive speakers driven poorly and showing up what goes before them....there is of course some leeway in this. The amp is the heart of the system, and so is truly vital to the life of it (that is certainly not dismissing the role of the speakers).
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide