This was posted on the Darko website today (30.11.25) and I thought folks might find it interesting. It contains a compelling and pragmatic argument for room treatments, among other topics. Cheers, R
Darko.Audio:
“Here’s the hierarchy as I now understand it, after treating three different rooms with acoustic panels—one in Berlin and two in Lisbon: 1) the room’s acoustic make-up; 2) loudspeaker placement; 3) the listening position; 4) subwoofer integration; 5) room correction software applied below 300Hz; 6) amplifier (power) matching; 7) DAC quality; and finally, at the skinniest end of the wedge, 8) whether you’re streaming, spinning vinyl or the sample rate and bit-depth of your hi-res files.
The most and least important components in a hi-fi system (and everything in between) | Darko.Audio
I agree. “Loudspeaker selection” is also mysteriously not on the list (!) (oops!)
I would have thought: (a) optimize the room you have (for renters and city dwellers this may not be a lot of things); (b) buy great speakers that can fill the room; (c) optimize speaker placement and listening position; (d) buy a great amp that can drive the speakers; (e) buy a great DAC that is a good match for your listening sources
But my proposed sequence is heavily biased because I live in a city apartment, and don’t have the ability to put in dedicated power connections, run fiber, play loud, play deep bass, etc., without “ruffling a lot of feathers,” as they say… ; )
Being a former Naim owner (and Linn), as many on here are, I still subscribe to the source first mantra when it comes to equipment.
One can have the best amplifier in the world (or speaker for that matter), however if the source is not able to retrieve all of the information contained in the grooves (using an analogue example), you will be missing out on some of the music
I disagree. The Tiefenbrun mantra of source is prime was first used when Linn only manufactured turntables. What else would they say? Just about any off the shelf source will sound at least very good with top of the line speakers and amps. A top of the line source will not provide very good sound from a cheap big box store speaker setup.
My Opinion: Assuming your room is not terrible..
Speakers that work in your room.
Amps that get you the most out of your speakers.
Proper set-up and room treatments.
Your source(s) of choice.
Cabling that gets your gear closer to what you want to hear.
What you say is correct. However nothing there has to do directly with music but with the sound of music. They are not identical. Missing music citself annot be replaced later by speakers .
Over the past decades I have heard several ( very costly) systems which sound terrific but lack musical expression. Alternatively I have heard systems which are involving, almost addictive to listen to, but I would rate only as sonically fair/good but not exceptional. I would rather spend my time with the latter than the former.
The great 20th century conductor Thomas Beecham, was the source of many witticisms, one of which was " The English may not like music but they adore the sound it makes".
Sadly think the word “audiophile” may often be substituted for “English”.
So maybe we are all wasting our money on Vivaldi’s etc. and we can get away with using something like a Chord Qutest…..as long as it is paired with a top of the line speaker and amp?
That isn’t what I said at all. Of course my Vivaldi sounds better than an off the shelf CD player or streamer. What I am saying is that standard CD player X in a system with take your pick Magico, Wilson, Maggie’s … with Boulder, Burmester, Dag’s….. will sound better than a Vivaldi, MSB stack, with a Marantz receiver or integrated amp.
When we are talking about audio gear we are always speaking of the sound of music as you put it.
In a way we are always talking about the sound of music. Even when we are listening to a live orchestra or acoustic pop music, we are listening to the sound of that music in that venue.
The problem with that position, I’ve come to believe, is that the logic breaks down on implementation:
Let’s say you have a 13’ x 16’ room (~4m x 5m). (I know this is a small room and I’m just using it to make the point):
You aren’t going to put Magico M6s in this room… You’re going to need smaller speakers. And then, it won’t make sense to have Gryphon Apex or D’Agostino monos in there either. They would be a big over expenditure to the speakers and will likely give off too much heat… you’ll probably want a nice integrated…
The above of course doesn’t negate the fact that you can’t fix a bad source, which is presumably why we are all here : )
And so the logic seems to flow from both endpoints at the same time:
(a) Room–>Speakers–>Amp + Treatments, as the article and @still-one suggest
And
(b) Great source
The article takes the position that the relative importance is greater in (a)…
Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints helps me with more than he intended. (He never saw me coming. I’m not famous )
What’s “best” in category A?
What’s “not as good” in category A?
What’s “best” in category B?
What’s “not as good” in category B?
etc.
Category A could be source equipment. Category B could be amplification. They could also be source material, and the room. Or my chops as a listener, and my wallet’s abilities as a willing accomplice to this hobby I’ve chosen. There’s a lot of these categories — if we could just optimise two of them things would be much simpler, but perhaps a whole lot less fun.
I’ve put “best” in quotes because I think (ha!) best is subjective. Subjective, also, in ways that aren’t all to do with listening pleasure, which I don’t think should be discounted — the best sounding amp might give off so much heat that I can’t bear to listen for more than ten minutes. The best sounding DAC might be too ugly to have in line of sight for its remote control.
Remembering that the theory aims to identify the currently limiting constraint of a system and resolve it (and repeat from there) then it’s worth continuing with the side bar: even the goals of the system might not be shared! @keiserrg might want background music and to warm his apartment in winter with something delicious and sculptural. (Good shout on thermals, Richard.) Ben might want to find out where his other half’s limit is for floor-area-covered-in-audio-equipment. (I’m sure it’s close.)
Anyway, provided we can agree that at least a portion of what we’re after from our listening sessions is enjoyment, then we should also be able to agree that we want to make changes that we like. Here’s where Mr. Goldratt comes to my aid.
If the audio system I sit in front of — made up of all of the possible categories I started listing above — doesn’t sound good I’ll look for the category that I think is holding it back the most. Which is the category where the difference between “best” and “not as good” affects the entire system the most? For me, it’s invariably the room. Which is a pain in the arse, because it’s much more fun spending money on shiny things that I can slot into a rack.
Please note that both the Rossini and Vivaldi Transports are using a Marantz mechanism [D&M = Denon and Marantz]. I think you are underestimating the brand. I get your point, but Marantz is also making great, top of the line, products.
I have to disagree. My room is very similar in size, and I’m extremely happy running a Gryphon Apex Stereo with the Gryphon Commander driving Wilson Audio Sasha DAWs. The system performs beautifully, and heat hasn’t been an issue. Bigger gear can work in a smaller room when it’s properly set up.
Very sorry, I was only using those pieces as examples, and I personally am a big fan of Gryphon. Separately, I also think everyone needs a little bit of this, at least sometimes ; )
No worries at all — thank you for clarifying! And I’m glad to hear you’re a Gryphon fan too.
And yes, I completely agree… everyone needs a bit of that once in a while!
Speaking of Gryphon, just for kicks I picked up a brand new Diablo 333 after hearing how good it sounded, to test it at home against my Tenor hybrid. After a month of use, it keeps blowing its main fuse!
)
