I realise this is somewhat of a circular argument in that both the quality hifi hardware and source materials affect sound quality. Indeed there are of course many other factors that affect SQ such as software (used in digital sources for example), how well a hifi is set-up, supports, cables, listening room parameters, even your mood - the list goes on. For the sake of simplicity however can we limit this to the affect hardware (source, amplification, speakers) and source materials (in particular high resolution music files) and their development has, and will have, on SQ now and in years to come. The now can be guaged from current users experience and the future will of course be somewhat speculative.
As I have upgraded my hardware in recent years (202 to 282, Hicap to SupercapDR, 200 to 250DR, NDX to NDS, Hiline to Sarum Tuned Aray, NAC A5 to SL) I have noticed worthwhile improvements in SQ at each step. In general poor quality (ripped) CDs still sounded poor but SQ from good quality CDs benefitted from each hardware upgrade. The biggest improvements from hardware upgrades was usually observed when streaming the well produced albums on the higher resolution music files.
There is a problem though, well two problems actually . There is still a dearth of high res music in my preferred genres, although I accept Classical and, to a lesser degree, Jazz are better served with high resolution material. But what about the rest of us?
The other (potential) problem I see is that developments in hifi hardware (I particularly refer to digital sources here) may not keep pace with improvements in high resolution music material. I suspect already developments in DAC technology/capability is some way behind the curve and we are not yet able to take full advantage offered by the highest resolution (and best produced) music files currently available. We are also in the early stages in developments surrounding and supporting DSD.
Now I fully accept that listening to high res music on a 500 series system will sound better than listening to the same on a Classic system. Well you would hope so anyway! By the way I fully accept those out there that insist vinyl offers the best SQ - I am merely picking hi res source material for simplicity and because it is used by many (most?) of us. Maybe it is the speed of development in digital sources that will specifically be the limiting factor. As this moves on a pace (hopefully), the bottleneck might move to the analogue amplification side of things or even speakers. This of course is pure speculation and I am no technician nor technologist.
Anyway I digress. The problem now as I see it is that the lack of sufficient high quality digital source material in my preferred genres might hold me back from upgrading my digital source hardware. Yes, I can rip CDs but I have found the quality of CDs very variable. If you don't get the right CD issue and end up with a dreadful remaster for example you are hampered straight away. The other (potential) issue is the ability digital source development (hardware and software) to keep pace with developments in digital source materials.
Maybe I worry too much and should take a chill pill!
Posted on: 03 October 2015 by dzambolaja
Hardware, then room treatment, then all else, perhaps?
Posted on: 03 October 2015 by feeling_zen
I also agree with Simon.
As I mentioned earlier in the post, you can take a fairly crusty recording from the 50's or 60's and play it back on a decent system and it comes alive. And I genuinely mean a subpar recording. A lot of blues and soul from that era has screechy brass sections, dull percussion, and a tonal balance that doesn't much resemble reality and the dynamic range was fairly limited by the recording techniques and media used. But magic happens on a good system and makes it live again warts and all.
I just find it strange that any lossy audio like MP3 or iTunes downloads sound more lifeless on a decent system even if the material was recent and mixed and mastered well. Technically, even though it is lossy, it is still capable of greater clarity and dynamic range than the oldies and the uncompressed PCM sounds great but the MP3/AAC/OGG etc, has last the groove somehow. An A/B comparison to the uncompressed CD/WAV or whatever sounds close enough but the foot tapping never starts.
Bit of a paradox really.
Posted on: 04 October 2015 by George F
Originally Posted by Wat:
Source Material will have the biggest influence
Simply play The Pretty Things wonderful SF Sorrow album and then some abysmal rubbish like Kanye West. I rest my case.
The quality of the original recording will certainly be the decisive factor for how good any specific system will sound. When doing a demonstration I always found that it was useful to take along favourite recordings of radically different qualities and styles. For example one might take the recordings by Barenboim [with Klemperer and the New Philharmonia from 1968 on EMI] and Schnabel [with Sergeant and the London symphony Orchestra from 1934 also on EMI] in Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto. Both great ever-green performances, but the older one comes in a distinctly old style recording which is just as clear as the newer one, but certainly lacks its bloom and natural warmth.
If the system can make the most of both then something good is happening. If only the newer recording sounds enjoyable, then for me the system is a reject, however much it may be rated by reviewers, sales people and perhaps members of this esteemed Forum!
On the other hand, it is surprising how much nicer a more expensive or sometimes just different system can sound ...
I have just converted to mono, which is probably unique among Forum members reading this, and the effects are occasionally startling. One specific effect that I had not predicted is that the actual level of playback is very important. Too loud and the bass becomes outsized! It requires listening at a "correct" volume setting that reflects what is natural in real life live concert listening.
There are so many factors at work with this. System balance. Correct sizing of speakers for the room. Optimal choice of speakers for the room and favourite musical style. Volume of listening. And the list could go on.
But most important is what the mastering and recording team had in mind as the likely type of replay. Contemporary pop music is mastered to be at its best on ear buds and loudspeakers in the work-place or car. None of these situations being really optimal for critical listening ... , and require much more compression to cope with the high ambient noses that are normal in such conditions. Radio Three would sound terrible in the work-place, because the music has such a wide dynamic range that the quieter parts would be completely drowned by the ambient noises.
It should be no surprise that certain recordings [typically pop music as an example] hardly sound as good as other styles [such as classical for an example] on the highest quality replay systems. Some recordings are not simply optimised for such quality in replay, and the processing in them to achieve acceptable playback on primitive systems, is revealed as often crude and un-naturalistic by the resolution available in high quality replay.
Just a mono penny's worth from George
