I think that 90% of the total package of sound quality one gets from a two-channel audio system depends on:
1. the listening room (size, shape, construction, etc.);
2. the speakers;
3. the placement of the speakers and listener with respect to each other and room boundaries; and
4. the acoustical treatment of the listening room.
I'm even pretty sure that these factors are listed in the order of their contribution to that 90%.
Differences among all the rest--amp, preamp, sources, cables, and various electrical and vibration isolation tweaks--while audible (we think), are truly swamped in importance by these four. Audiophiles can still hear the effects of these things even when those four are not excellent, but anyone who says that the difference between one amp and another is more significant to the illusion of reality than moving the speakers a few inches is kidding themselves. A non-audiophile will always hear the effects of these four things (or at least the first three), but will often strain to hear the effect of any other change which may be "perfectly obvious" to the audiophile.
Many, if not most, audiophiles do not approach excellence in these four areas. This is not necessarily or even usually out of ignorance. If you lack an understanding family, 1., 3., and 4. cannot be properly dealt with.
Note that the most important factor, the purpose-built room itself, is the most expensive and most difficult to get cooperation with. Proper speakers are also expensive and thus difficult to swing both financially and domestic-acceptance wise. But try to throw the decor issues involved in 3. and 4. into the mix and you either need a VERY understanding family, or you are back to the expense of a dedicated listening room.
Many audiophiles don't even know, or have forgotten, how important these four factors are, having somewhere along the line bought into the Linn "source uber alles" philosophy.
As to the speakers, you hear comments about how "speakers are difficult." Well, yes, they are difficult simply because even today there are night-and-day differences between competing products and you have to decide which to build your sound around. Because they are so "difficult," many audiophiles refuse to spend more than $3,000 (new price) or so on a pair of speakers, knowing that next year or next month they will want a "new sound."
That means that for most audiophiles, upgrading which does not involve speaker replacement takes place at the level of the remaining 10% of possible sound quality, for which vast sums are expended. Look at how many different speakers are sold at less than $3,000 new retail, and how much activity there is in the used market for speakers at that price level and all the rest of the gear. The problem is, every time the system's speakers are changed, what ensues is a valiant, if ultimately doomed, effort to compensate for the, say, 20% contributed by the speakers with electronics, sources, and other stuff which can only control 10%.
These realities have led some audiophiles to gravitate toward speakers which are maximally forgiving of the room around them, so as to minimize the effects of factors 1., 3., and 4. while still being subjectively excellent in terms frequency response, distortion, dynamics, etc. Such speakers should also be designed so that they sound excellent regardless of what is feeding them, how they are placed in a room, where you listen from in the room, how the room is constructed, and the nature of the room treatment, if any. Those factors are still quite audible with such "room ignoring" speakers, but they can not so easily sabotage the inherent excellence of the speaker as they can with other speakers.
Now, the problem is that there is little agreement in the audio community about how to design a speaker to maximally ignore the room and its set up and still sound inherently excellent. The views include, but are not limited to, speakers which are:
a. omnidirectional over their full range (e.g., MBL), since all the reflected sound will tend to have a similar frequency response to the direct sound from the speakers;
b. wide-dispersion (but not omndirectonal) up as high in frequency as possible, usually having narrow anti-diffraction baffles;
c. dipole panels (e.g., planar magnetics, quasi-ribbons, and electrostats) since they put out little sound in the up-and-down and side-to-side directions, thus being less influenced by room modes and reflective room surfaces;
d. increasingly directional in their output starting at a quite low frequency, such as the Gedlee Summa;
e. narrow or at least very controlled in dispersion from top to bottom, such as the Legacy Audio Whisper, the Gradients, and various horn models--all very different approaches to the same narrow/controlled-dispersion goal;
f. constant in directivity up to a 30-degree angle or so up to about 4 kHz, with response rolling off even on axis above that frequency and with increasing directivity above that frequency, e.g., the classic Acoustic Research (AR) speakers such as the AR-3a;
g. constant in directivity up to a 30-degree angle or so up to about 4 kHz, and flat on axis above that frequency but with increasing directivity above that frequency, e.g., the JBL Pro LSR 6332; such speakers necessarily having a fairly wide front baffle.
I know which approaches I favor for those who cannot control room acoustics and set up: e., f., and perhaps g. REG currently believes g. to be the best design approach, but admits it would require room treatment of some sort, or at least a very "softly" furnished room for best results. For those who can't change their room decor from fairly "live"/reflective to "soft," e. and f. might be better choices.
Actually, I favor approaches e., f., g. even in a totally dedicated listening room. In my experience, such speakers are much easier to get to sound truly excellent in even a dedicated audio room without heroic room treatments.
1. the listening room (size, shape, construction, etc.);
2. the speakers;
3. the placement of the speakers and listener with respect to each other and room boundaries; and
4. the acoustical treatment of the listening room.
I'm even pretty sure that these factors are listed in the order of their contribution to that 90%.
Differences among all the rest--amp, preamp, sources, cables, and various electrical and vibration isolation tweaks--while audible (we think), are truly swamped in importance by these four. Audiophiles can still hear the effects of these things even when those four are not excellent, but anyone who says that the difference between one amp and another is more significant to the illusion of reality than moving the speakers a few inches is kidding themselves. A non-audiophile will always hear the effects of these four things (or at least the first three), but will often strain to hear the effect of any other change which may be "perfectly obvious" to the audiophile.
Many, if not most, audiophiles do not approach excellence in these four areas. This is not necessarily or even usually out of ignorance. If you lack an understanding family, 1., 3., and 4. cannot be properly dealt with.
Note that the most important factor, the purpose-built room itself, is the most expensive and most difficult to get cooperation with. Proper speakers are also expensive and thus difficult to swing both financially and domestic-acceptance wise. But try to throw the decor issues involved in 3. and 4. into the mix and you either need a VERY understanding family, or you are back to the expense of a dedicated listening room.
Many audiophiles don't even know, or have forgotten, how important these four factors are, having somewhere along the line bought into the Linn "source uber alles" philosophy.
As to the speakers, you hear comments about how "speakers are difficult." Well, yes, they are difficult simply because even today there are night-and-day differences between competing products and you have to decide which to build your sound around. Because they are so "difficult," many audiophiles refuse to spend more than $3,000 (new price) or so on a pair of speakers, knowing that next year or next month they will want a "new sound."
That means that for most audiophiles, upgrading which does not involve speaker replacement takes place at the level of the remaining 10% of possible sound quality, for which vast sums are expended. Look at how many different speakers are sold at less than $3,000 new retail, and how much activity there is in the used market for speakers at that price level and all the rest of the gear. The problem is, every time the system's speakers are changed, what ensues is a valiant, if ultimately doomed, effort to compensate for the, say, 20% contributed by the speakers with electronics, sources, and other stuff which can only control 10%.
These realities have led some audiophiles to gravitate toward speakers which are maximally forgiving of the room around them, so as to minimize the effects of factors 1., 3., and 4. while still being subjectively excellent in terms frequency response, distortion, dynamics, etc. Such speakers should also be designed so that they sound excellent regardless of what is feeding them, how they are placed in a room, where you listen from in the room, how the room is constructed, and the nature of the room treatment, if any. Those factors are still quite audible with such "room ignoring" speakers, but they can not so easily sabotage the inherent excellence of the speaker as they can with other speakers.
Now, the problem is that there is little agreement in the audio community about how to design a speaker to maximally ignore the room and its set up and still sound inherently excellent. The views include, but are not limited to, speakers which are:
a. omnidirectional over their full range (e.g., MBL), since all the reflected sound will tend to have a similar frequency response to the direct sound from the speakers;
b. wide-dispersion (but not omndirectonal) up as high in frequency as possible, usually having narrow anti-diffraction baffles;
c. dipole panels (e.g., planar magnetics, quasi-ribbons, and electrostats) since they put out little sound in the up-and-down and side-to-side directions, thus being less influenced by room modes and reflective room surfaces;
d. increasingly directional in their output starting at a quite low frequency, such as the Gedlee Summa;
e. narrow or at least very controlled in dispersion from top to bottom, such as the Legacy Audio Whisper, the Gradients, and various horn models--all very different approaches to the same narrow/controlled-dispersion goal;
f. constant in directivity up to a 30-degree angle or so up to about 4 kHz, with response rolling off even on axis above that frequency and with increasing directivity above that frequency, e.g., the classic Acoustic Research (AR) speakers such as the AR-3a;
g. constant in directivity up to a 30-degree angle or so up to about 4 kHz, and flat on axis above that frequency but with increasing directivity above that frequency, e.g., the JBL Pro LSR 6332; such speakers necessarily having a fairly wide front baffle.
I know which approaches I favor for those who cannot control room acoustics and set up: e., f., and perhaps g. REG currently believes g. to be the best design approach, but admits it would require room treatment of some sort, or at least a very "softly" furnished room for best results. For those who can't change their room decor from fairly "live"/reflective to "soft," e. and f. might be better choices.
Actually, I favor approaches e., f., g. even in a totally dedicated listening room. In my experience, such speakers are much easier to get to sound truly excellent in even a dedicated audio room without heroic room treatments.