SUMMER MUSINGS: What are the most important audio components? Domains / dimensions of the audiophile pursuit.

The other day, I came upon another common question we run into within the audiophile forum communities. The thread topic on the Steve Hoffman Forums read: "What is more important? The quality of the source devices or the quality of the amp and speakers?"

Among the pages, in response to the question, there was this one listing items as such:

1 (tie). Source material, i.e. the recording, the mix and master, etc.
1 (tie). Speakers
3. Your hearing
4. Analog source playback device
5. Your room
6. Your mood
7 (tie). Digital source playback device
7 (tie). Amplification

A good list to start with! Let's spend some time in this post thinking more about this, adding more details, and broadening it out. Clearly, this (and variants of this) topic is one of those "classic" big-picture questions that demand a more nuanced and complete take. Specifically, let's make sure to contextualize the response with what I believe are relevant dimensions or domains to include.

As you can see in the list above, the poster obviously has an open mind about the determinants of sound quality. "Your hearing" and "your mood" are significant elements in the equation when we're talking about the subjective experience. As are "Your drinks". Maybe even "Your substance of choice" in some circles when listening to music! (I'll pass, thanks. 🙂)

These "most important" lists are typically started by audiophiles wondering about the hardware that others are using and perhaps looking ahead at what else one could buy to enhance the experience. A few years ago in 2019, I addressed this kind of question using a pie graph to represent the amount of money I would allocate to each audio "component" - here it is for reference:

Looking at that chart and the percentages, my opinion hasn't changed significantly over the last half decade after measuring and listening to more devices, different classes of devices, and examining the results from blind testing. I would still wholeheartedly recommend focusing most of your economic resources intended for audio components into acquiring a good room and good speakers.

To me, when we talk about the various determinants of "how good something sounds", we really need to open our minds to various domains rather than just produce a monolithic list which usually is unable to get us very far nor promote deeper understanding. Comparisons and rankings only make sense when we compare similar types of things.

Here's how I see it...

Domain I: Source Recording Quality

This is the Source. This is the art we're trying to experience. All the possibilities of what represents "good sound", and emotions when heard by a subject (ie. the music lover, audiophile, you) is embodied in the recordings we can get our hands on, not some hypothetical idea about "what it sounded like in the studio", or "live" even though it's important to know what real instruments sound like for us to judge if acoustic recordings sound realistic. Since CDs, LPs, tapes, and digital downloads are artificial accounts/records/data of the sound that was captured, there's engineering here beyond the artistry of the musician.

It's chicken-or-the-egg. Unless you have songs/artists that interest you, the audio captured well, produced tastefully, mastered in high quality, put on to a medium that supports the resolution, then there's no point seeking out high-fidelity playback hardware, is there?

Some genres are by nature "lo-fi" either by intent, or perhaps they were the product of a time when high-fidelity was not within reach of the artist. For example, I love Billy Eckstine's version of "I Apologize" (released back in 1951). While it doesn't sound bad, as far as I am aware, there's no truly "high-fidelity" version of this song that would impress audiophiles with pristine low noise floor, full frequency extension, or anything close to "hi-res" quality.

As audiophiles, we have no power over this domain of audio production unless we're doing our own recordings. Most of the time, the best we can do is being mindful of the versions of the album that are out there so we can pick and choose the best. Sometimes, smaller audiophile labels like MoFi, Audio Fidelity, Analogue Productions, DCC, SDE (excellent multichannel/Atmos mixes!) might be able to get us the best versions of what we love. Hopefully, the music and musicians you love were able to record their material in excellent quality to begin with and there exists high-quality studio masters whether it's master tapes or digital source mixes (especially after all these decades for 'classic' material on tape). Sadly, the "Loudness War" esthetic in the last few decades has IMO destroyed many digital recordings since around Y2K to the point that we're not sure if less compressed versions might even be feasibly remastered and released.

Due to the prevalence of this loudness issue, while it's one of many parameters, I will typically include the easily measured and compared Dynamic Range (DR) value when I mention recordings I'm listening to as a correlate of the crest factor of the music; a measure of peak amplitude divided by RMS waveform average. While not perfect, in general, more natural recordings which have retained nuances with good transients typically measure better than DR10.

Acoustic recordings like classical typically are higher than DR12. Some of the most dynamic classical orchestral pieces measure above DR15. An example of a very dynamic early digital recording would be the Erich Kunzel Tchaikovsky 1812 (Telarc, recorded in 1978) achieving an impressive DR17, and known to challenge some phono cartridges, potentially jumping off the groove (see 4:05):

I've always considered adequate DR as a cornerstone of knowing if a recording is worthy of "high-resolution". This is why I will not purchase 24-bit music unless at least DR10 but typically DR12+; something I've discussed since 2014 (not that 24-bit vs. dithered 16-bit makes much of a difference either). Search the DR Database to research the various album remasters and releases.

Beyond their ability to expand the listener's impression of spatial immersion, it's great to see that multichannel/Atmos albums are being produced to an integrated loudness not to exceed -18 LKFS/LUFS when streaming on Apple Music (and presumably this holds with other services). Finally, guidelines on loudness being implemented! If they remain vigilant with enforcement, this will result in more dynamic multichannel recordings which can also be folded down to 2-channel versions despite the ongoing uncontrolled loudness among 2-channel stereo releases. This is important for audiophiles.

Perhaps one day, mainstream audiophile magazines may appreciate the importance of excessive dynamic range compression as perhaps the single most potent factor in destroying sound quality of recordings we buy over the decades. IMO, typical mainstream audio writers often get too caught up with comparatively small matters like lossless vs. lossy encoding at adequate bitrates as discussed earlier this year. Losslessness as an ideal is great, but let's make sure not to lose perspective or stoke unnecessary neurotic fears.

Not all music genres demand the most low-noise, low-distortion, highest resolution audiophile reproduction. For example, while hard rock and heavy metal music I'm sure will push audiophile sound systems to the extreme with their thick, dense content that demands adequate volume, I'm not sure if these recordings will adequately test out the system's ability to reproduce gentle nuances! 😁

Garbage In, Garbage Out. Source, as in the recordings we buy - whether CD, LP, tapes, digital streams, or data downloads - obviously will be an essential determinant of sound quality regardless of our reproduction hardware or other domains of "good sound".

Domain II: Audio Reproduction Hardware

Audiophiles spend a ton of time on this. Forums cater to this. Manufacturers promote this. What are the "best" speakers, "best" DACs, even "best" cables? Understandably, we do have control over this domain based on what we acquire.

Assuming that we're comparing a reasonably affordable device (not cheapest of the cheap!) versus one of the same type that's say more than 2x the price or of recognizably higher quality, here's how I would rank the importance when it comes to the potential of affecting sonic quality:

* MOST IMPORTANT FOR SOUND QUALITY *

Speakers and headphones (by a mile!)
   - Subwoofer might be essential depending on the music!

Analogue playback gear:
   - Phono cartridge > Turntable > pre-amp
   - Tape player 

   - LP cleaning machine!

Pre-amp + Amplifier, including headphone amps

Digital-to-Analogue Converter (DAC) - potential significant differences depending on filtering, DSP applied, coloration introduced with tube output stages, etc.

------ Transition Zone ------ 

Analogue cables
   - Speaker cables
   - Interconnects (single-ended > balanced)

Power conditioners
   - I suppose a UPS could be very useful if your electrical system is unreliable!

Power cables 

Digital player (ie. streamer)
   - obviously all bets are off if you implement EQ or DSP to change sound!

   - we can include audio player software here as well if using a general computer

Digital cables (S/PDIF, AES-EBU, USB, etc.) & networking (switches, filters)

"Tweaks" - audiophile fuses, foil stickers, green pens, tiny "resonators", rocks, wood blocks...

* LEAST IMPORTANT FOR SOUND QUALITY *

I have not numbered them or placed any relative value here to suggest that the order of the list isn't rigid because there's significant variability in each 'class' of device.

Speakers (transducers in general, including headphones) are by far the essential hardware cornerstone when it comes to achieving good sound in any system. These are the hardest devices to manufacture to achieve consistently good quality. Without good transducers that can reproduce the intended (ideally full 20Hz to 20kHz) sound waves at adequate reference levels, then all bets are off for me. This is why I consider subwoofers (that can accurately reproduce sub-bass below 50Hz) to be essential if you have music that dig deep. As one who enjoys modern rock, pop, EDM, orchestral, I want a reference system that reproduces down to 20Hz. No compromise on this objectively measurable criterion in the reference sound/movie room.

I'm not much of an analogue playback guy (sure, I still have an LP collection and have played with some cassette tapes more recently) simply because I don't consider this high-fidelity media. While LPs can sound good, technically, they're significantly compromised in terms of potential resolution. Furthermore, playback quality will be highly variable depending on the phono cartridge, turntable, tape player, and paraphernalia associated with such technologies (like the phono preamp, step-up transformers, even LP cleaning devices...). I'd also prefer to enjoy the music rather than futz around with century-old anachronistic playback technology that just isn't up to modern high-fidelity standards by design.

Being analogue devices, pre-amps and amplifiers can affect sound substantially. Qualities such as output impedance (damping factor) will change sound. Tubes might add distortion which could be experienced as "warmth" or "fullness" (like this, solid state devices can also do this). Also, depending on room size and speaker sensitivity, output power requirements need to be satisfied.

As for DACs, I think what's fair to say is that if the devices strive for objectively high-fidelity, high-resolution reproduction, then they generally sound much more similar across the price range. We see this in the results of our recent "High-End" DAC Blind Listening Test - whether it's a US$8 Apple dongle or a US$20,000 Linn Klimax DSM/2 Katalyst, there's really not much difference to get excited about. Of course, we have all kinds of DAC designs that probably purposely add distortions to differentiate the sound: NOS (no anti-imaging reconstruction filtering), low-quality R2R, and tube output stages come to mind.

Notice below the DAC category, I put it a "Transition Zone" marker because everything south of this I would consider of a lower "tier" of importance for meaningful audibility. By extension, I believe these products are not worth putting much money into until you have achieved satisfaction with everything above. (This doesn't mean one should not consider non-utilitarian rationales such as appearance and luxury, or practical features when considering value to the end user. These reasons would not be for improving factually verifiable high fidelity improvement though.)

Analogue cables can bring subtle measurable changes, like with speaker cables. Single-ended RCA cables can be more susceptible to noise, typically not an issue with balanced cables. I have seen no evidence for fancy power cables unless somehow the stock wire is inadequate to supply current to a power-hungry amp I suppose. If a power cord could change the sound significantly, why wouldn't expensive amplifiers come with multi-hundred-dollar fancy wires rather than stock wires and plugs, or at the very least identify specific cables to pair with the device? Until this happens among respected manufacturers, it just implies that we should not worry about it.

A power conditioner with protective surge suppression or maybe better yet a battery back-up system (not necessarily as expensive as the Stromtank!) could be useful if your local power grid is very poor I suppose. I've been using my good 'ol Belkin PureAV PF60 for years now and have not had any audio device fail due to surges, but I would not say the sound changes with or without the noise filtering.

We know that bit-perfect digital source devices make little to no difference when connected to a good DAC. Likewise, bit-perfect software makes no difference. Digital cables likewise will not impart their own sound and digital errors sound nasty as demonstrated years ago so you'll hear a problem if there is one.

Finally, tweaks are mostly snake oil. Who knows, maybe some things like vibration-reduction speaker footers might make a difference - show me the evidence. Maybe these Shakti Voodoo Sticks Hallograph Soundfield Optimizers do something?

I suspect Steve Hoffman is no longer as enthusiastic about this thing
as he appeared at CES 2003? Here's a recent video about these wooden sticks.
We all make mistakes. It's OK to change our minds on such things.
Just be careful with endorsements and images as the Internet doesn't forget!

Like I've said above, you don't need to worry about this lower tier stuff unless you really are done with your main system and not sure where else to put your money (may I suggest a nice vacation? some books? more music?). Most of the time, I think it's wise to not even think about those lower tier items - possible ever - unless you come across some evidence of benefit from rational corners of this hobby!

Domain III: Room Acoustics + correction DSP

A cramped room filled with audio gear from floor to ceiling is obviously not what I hope most audiophiles are aiming for. I hope we were all music lovers to begin with and the joy of hearing our favorite tracks played back in the space that we set for this purpose is what we're ultimately aiming for. I think it's important to examine our motives and be mindful of the risk of audiophilia becoming a sort of pathological audio hardware fetish (or maybe something like this).

Unless one listens purely with headphones, or in the nearfield (direct sound dominates all other reflections), then the room and its acoustic properties obviously matter greatly and as such I see it as a separate "domain" or "sphere of knowledge/importance" we need to pay attention to. We've discussed some of the practical elements previously which I won't repeat here.

As per the pie graph above, realistically, space costs money. It's important to make sure your audio system "fits" into the space you have in order to achieve balance. Are we sticking dipole speakers too close to walls? Are we sitting backed right against walls? Are tall 6+' speakers being crammed in a basement with barely 8' height into the corners? How much money do we want to spend on a system if the layout of a multi-use room prevents the listener from even sitting in a reasonable sweet spot?

In all our discussions and decisions, make sure to always factor in that room. After all, what is the point of sticking a US$250,000 sound system in a walk-in closet with bathroom acoustics? I suspect that would look foolish in the eyes of most audiophiles. When we read the opinions of audio reviewers, make sure we take into account the kind of space they might be auditioning the music/gear in. I've noticed over the years that some reviewers seem a bit cagey about showing you actual pictures of their listening space (like this guy - I bet you he's ashamed of how the rooms look regardless of the pride in his gear descriptions).

Within this discussion of room acoustics would be the role of correction DSP. I see this as an important and even essential link that straddles the domains of room and hardware used by the modern audiophile. The power of the technology should not be underestimated which is why I think it was important to spend time discussing the effects of software like Acourate and Audiolense recently.

IMO, the time, money and expertise spent on optimizing the acoustics in the room, whether it be positional optimizations, room treatments, and/or DSP capabilities can easily be much more meaningful than simply acquiring new gear. 

Domain IV: Mental Engagement (The Listener)

Of all the Domains, this is the most difficult to talk about and make generalizations on. This is the heart of idiosyncrasy and subjectivity.

Beyond how we perform as insightful listeners such as how well we hear and our cognitive abilities (ability to attend, memory, intellectual ability, insightfulness) which might be more or less measurable, intangibles like our mood, fatigability, distractibility, all play a part in subjective preference at any one time. Also, let's not forget the music/genre we choose to enjoy. Hopefully there's a positive emotional feedback loop as we satisfy that which we seek whether it's pure joy or even the bitter sweetness of a sad song when the occasion calls.

While scientifically we can talk about trends in hearing acuity and cognitive ability within normal populations (including the tendency for age to reduce high-frequency hearing), group averages don't define any one person's actual abilities. I'll leave it to you then whether you believe the claims of individual "Golden Eared" subjective reviewers when you come across articles and videos with descriptions of the sound that might be hard to believe!

For me, enjoyment of music is different from the analytical demands of sound quality adjudication. Generally, there's no need to argue over subjective preferences, but obviously be mindful of psychological biases if we're judging sound quality. There are internal biases as well as external powerful psychological principles behind marketing and advertisements; ever more potent with modern "big-data" and the ability to model and target individual interests online. Like it or not, blind testing is often needed to move our understanding beyond the level of mere opinions.

Summary...

Going back to the forum thread at the start of this post regarding "What is more important? The quality of the source devices or the quality of the amp and speakers?", my most concrete answer would be:

Speakers > analogue source device > amp > DAC > digital source device > probably everything else except DSP 

All within "Domain II: Audio Reproduction Hardware" which is the level where most discussions on audiophile forums take place.

While it's tempting as consumers to focus just on our hardware and this is the natural area of influence for device makers, I think it behooves the audiophile practitioner to remember to think broadly about the four "domains" discussed that contribute to our audiophile experience. These domains (or dimensions if you prefer) co-exist, and it would be ridiculous to claim that any one of these would not profoundly color the overall experience.

A failure in any of these domains would ruin the quality of our music-loving endeavor.

What quality is the music & recording itself?

What is the quality of your audio reproduction hardware?

Is the room supportive of good sound?

How well do I perceive, attend, and emotionally engage?

Each domain is just as important as any other even if we can dive into individual domains and rank certain recordings/products over another - Dire Straits recordings are typically higher fidelity than The Rolling Stones and less compressed than the Spice Girls, speakers make more difference than amplifiers and DACs when we upgrade, rooms with lower ambient noise and reverb time would be better to appreciate musical nuances, for me the pop genre is typically preferred over hard rock or gamelan.

[On a side note, we can see that some discussions get muddled up when there's lack of clarity around which domain is being discussed. For example, recently Darko interviewed Peter Comeau (Heybrook, Mission, Wharfedale) and notice the uncertainty as to agreement of whether the "room is the most important" near the end around 1:51. Darko believes the room is most important, Comeau believes the speakers are more important. 

Aren't both fine positions!? Both coexist as different domains and neither have to take mastery over the other. Surely, the experienced audiophile would not need to argue and recognizes the truth that to declare one a winner would diminish the independent importance of the other! This is what happens when we don't consider things in their respective parallel dimensions.]

Of course, regardless of how much time we spend cogitating and comparing, there is something to be said ultimately about just having fun and enjoying all that modern audio reproduction technology can provide for us music listeners. In the days before any of us found hi-fi audio as a hobby, I hope we all simply enjoyed the music, right?

I certainly hope the hi-fi hobby hasn't been a curse in robbing any of us from the simple pleasure of being in love with music! 😐

At the end of all your explorations, may you simply find contentment, and enjoy the music, friends...