For me, it’s some combination of:
- reading
- intuition
- listening
- luck
- time
My ears decide.
Is it possible to really know what you're doing?
Somehow I managed to select components that are getting along and feel comfortable with how things are sounding after many upgrades. I rely on others to advise along the way. I'm very good at asking questions.
Every facet of a set up is quite complicated. Even power cord's can be challenging. Name recognition is very important and there are so many names.
The technical aspects of everything involved is clearly overwhelming and requires a lot to barely understand. I've learned enough to know that I really don't understand a lot. At least I'm able to appreciate what I'm listening to which is all that really matters, and know if something sounds good.
Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
64 responses Add your response
Similar experience/journey. what really helped educate my ears was being part of a small group of fellow audiophiles and regular listening sessions at each others houses and we were all going thru different gear as upgrades or just on loan to listen to. we also played a lot with speaker positions and room treatments in each of our rooms. being able to listen to a lot of gear and with mags like the absolute sound and stereophile as our guides was a great experience.
|
@richardbrand Thank you. That answers my question. Since the picture shows him playing the pedals, I was curious why pedaling could also be entirely encoded onto the rolls. I read that the Duo-Art was invented in 1913–14, and it’s amazing that the machine could even simulate ’flutter’ pedaling performed by a pianist—though only to a certain degree and heavily dependent on how the rolls were prepared or edited. It’s remarkable that it achieved all this not digitally, but purely through pneumatic control of mechanical parts. I enjoy talking with you about these detailed nuances. While listening to music on a refined system, the intellectual enrichment is equally refreshing and rewarding.
|
There's not as much information in the 2L booklet as I remembered, so I must have read this too - Duo-Art Reproducing Piano - The Pianola Institute. For the original recording, Grainger used a Duo-Art reproducing piano which punched holes in paper rolls. Editing was done with razor blades and sticky tape, just like my early computer programming - this was cut and paste for real! By 1921 recordings were made on full 88-key instruments with the roll running at constant speed, Dynamics and rubato were encoded into the rolls, which had four 'bits' reserved for volume. This theoretically allowed 16 volume levels and was probably set by a second person, usually the producer, using pedals or dials at the time of recording. Because the volume holes controlled analoge vacuum, which was also affected by the number of notes being played and their duration, much greater dynamic variation could be achieved. Percy Grainger was heavily involved in editing the rolls. He observed that "the Duo-Art represented him not as he actually played, but as he would like to have played". Originally, the orchestral parts were added to the rolls, and these had to be removed, hole by hole, with sticky tape. For 2L's recording, a major issue was synchronising the orchestral entry at the end of each piano solo. Microprocessor control allowed the roll to stop after each solo, and the pianolist to restart using a remote control. So Rex Lawson did not have to interpret for the Piano Concerto, though he did for earlier rolls made by Grieg included on this recording |
| Post removed |
I've combined my video and audio playback capabilities for almost as long as I can remember, although it took me a long time to add rear speakers and even longer to cut holes in the ceiling for height speakers. My main source is now a Reavon universal disk player, which inherits much of the technology from the high-end Oppo players but with much inferior Burr-Brown DACs. So I just use it as a transport feeding out HDMI audio and separately HDMI video. It natively handles SACD and many Blu-Ray audio formats including Dolby Atmos. I use a Marantz AV8802 pre-processor feeding a 2-channel Krell KSA80 Class A amplifier for the main speakers, and a six-channel Perreaux amplifier for the rest. No centre channel by design! The Marantz has an array of eight identical Asahi Kasei Microdevices (AMD) 2-channel DACs, which each handle Direct Stream Digital natively, as well as PCM up to 192-kHz at 24-bits. They are far superior to the Reavon's Burr-Brown DACs. So quite a different setup compared to the 2-channel streaming 'norm' many here use.
I will re-read the technical details on how Percy Grainger's piano rolls were recorded, and report back shortly. Percy did a lot of editing work fixing errors - the result was how "he would have liked to have played"! |
@richardbrand I agree that Time Machine's performance is amazing. I'm not sure how Rex interpreted Grainger’s use of the foot pedals — By ear I would guess. Thank you for reminding me about L2. I was astonished to learn how productive they've been in recent years since I last visited their website. That got me thinking again about multichannel streamers and DACs, which are still quite rare. I suppose both we and the market have been largely two-channel driven. Now I realize that when playing these multichannel formats on a 2-channel system, the original spatial (surround) placement gets lost in translation. My 2-channel setup — and perhaps no 2-channel system — can truly reproduce that 3D effect, especially the instruments or vocals that are originally placed behind the listener. Even my soundstage isn’t wide enough to fully cover side vocals. Clearly, a multichannel system is needed to reproduce that experience accurately. That’s why I’ve never used "3D holographic" as one of my system metrics — only "depth" or "layering" — due to the inherent limitations of two-channel playback. Are you motivated to invest a multichannel stereo or you have it already? |
For forty years or so I have listened to Quad electrostatic ’planar’ loudspeakers, the ESL-63 and ESL 2905 to be precise, backed by subwoofers from Duntech and then Velodyne. In my opinion, these electrostatics are amongst the most misunderstood designs of all time (ha, back on topic!). Peter Walker, the designer, certainly knew about the ’beaminess’ issue displayed by almost all planar designs. He also knew from his original electrostatics, now known as the 57, about cross-over issues with multiple drivers. The overarching brilliance of his design was to make a planar panel behave like a virtual point source of sound. The point source is about a foot (30 cms) behind the diaphragm. You can envisage the sound waves radiating in spherical wavefronts from the point source. When these imaginary waves reach the panel, the first bit to move is the centre. Then the wavefront expands outwards in a circle. Peter emulated this behaviour by arranging eight annular rings to be fed the signal with increasing delay towards the outside. Note that the delay need only factor in the speed of sound from the virtual point source. When you add in the lack of cabinet colouration (there isn’t one) and the speed of a diaphragm almost as light as air, y0u can see why the Gramophone equipped its main reviewers with ESL-63 speakers. I found I could walk round my FREDs (Full Range Electrostatic Dipoles) and the sound was consistent even in the plane of the panel, where there should be no output at all! I put that down to coherent wall reflections and the ear-brain’s ability. Alas, nothing is perfect and the protection circuits in the ESLs are more easily triggered by the peaks in digital source material - like Steven Spielberg’s West Side Story. These days I mainly use another speaker designed to emulate a point source, the KEF Reference 1. Like you, I bought a pair secondhand as stop gaps while repairing my Quads. The KEFs play so much louder! |
My favourite Grammy recordings are by the Norwegian label 2L - see 2L - the Nordic Sound. They are not just multi-microphone, they are multi-channel delivered on SACD, Blu-ray and Dolby Atmos. Many are of classical music and get rave reviews from, for example, the Gramophone magazine, which has been going for over 100 years. In my opinion, for classical music, Gramophone carries more weight than a Grammy committee. Note that 2L recordings do however follow the principle of 'one microphone' to capture the original performance in its recording space. So the 'one microphone' becomes a central, fixed microphone 'tree'. My understanding is that, apart from mixing down, for example to reduce the number of channels for SACD and vinyl, no further processing is performed. These days 2L uses DSD files sampled at a very high frequency for archiving. All lesser digital formats can be precisely computed from the archive data. The producer Morten Lindberg also turns the question of microphone positioning on its head. Instead of "where should the microphones be placed?" he asks "where should the players be?". His rather surprising answer is in an approximate circle around the microphones, but away from the walls of the venue. He believes all recordings are an illusion and his illusions are better than most! Admittedly he tends to record with smaller forces than a full symphony orchestra of over 100 instruments! Despite that, one of his towering achievements, in my opinion, is his recording of Grieg's Piano Concerto. The pianist is the Australian Percy Grainger who was born in 1882 and would be 143 if alive today, so obviously there is some trickery! Percy made piano roll recordings in 1921 and here they are replayed on a modern Steinway piano with the Kristiansand Symphony Orchestra in full multichannel. Simply stunning! |
You’re absolutely correct. It’s interesting that MBL’s founder was motivated by the desire to move about the listening room without loss of sound quality. I completely empathize with that approach. I find the idea of sitting at length in a single chair in a windowless, mausoleum-like room triangulated as if by a land surveyor, unappealing. I can move around my room, including in the 15 ft-deep space behind my speakers, without experiencing a major deterioration in sound quality. Which actually makes sense, since they have 3 open-baffle mids, arranged in a modest line array; front- and rear-firing ribbon tweeters; and two 10" woofers in sealed, divided enclosures. I wish I could say that extensive research and countless auditions led me to a speaker architecture that works in my room and is right for me, but I got them off craigslist because they were cheap and they looked good. They were intended as interim speakers while I looked for my "real" speakers, but a funny thing happened: I grew to really like them. I say this as someone who’s always loved the transparency and speed of planar speakers. I was this close to buying a set of Sanders 10e, but merely standing up from your chair felt as if someone had put a motorcycle helmet over your ears. They are amazing-sounding speakers that I warmly recommend to anyone who doesn’t mind their beaminess, but at the end of the day I’m glad I didn’t buy them.
Worthwhile outcomes both! 😂
|
Swapping, mixing and matching high fidelity components and cables is a long cherished audiophile activity which undoubtedly has produced countless hours of audio enjoyment. The drawback to this process is the amount of time and expense that it consumes. Today with digital signal processing (DSP) you can tune and optimize your system real time. First start by combining excellent speakers, modern power amplifiers with a digital source which will leverage Dirac or other DSP System / Room correction algorithms Once you have your speakers positioned, the next step is to optimize your system using tools like REW and Dirac Live room correction. Now you can make adjustments, listen to the results and measure the results rapidly. It’s enlightening to be able to make adjustments to your system and measure them in real time. https://deercreekaudio.com/tech-blog Here are some examples of Dirac Live correction
|
Grammy-nominated recordings typically reflect the highest standards of recording engineering and fidelity. In Grammy-nominated or Grammy-winning recordings, the recording engineering approach is almost always multi-microphone technique, not One Mic. Multi-mic tech. enables precise control over indi. instruments, vocals, room acoustics, direct sound, image, SS depth, etc. We are talking about reference / standard here in lieu of something based on someone's ad hoc opinion. |
pindac makes a good point. The vast majority of music we listen to is electronically created and is a product of the producer's fantasy. |
@lanx0003 stated " In a concert hall, the sonic quality perceived by you and me is heavily dependent on the acoustic treatment and where you sit " I have been to Concert Halls where Rock Music is produced Heavily Dependent on Electronics to create the Sound. The End Sound from the PA System is directional, in the case of my being at the PULSE in 1994 at the Royal Albert Hall from a very distant recollection the PA was a large proportion Electrostatic Speakers, hence very very directional End Sound. Solely Acoustic Sound is Omnidirectional and is very different in comparison to directional sound. An Audio System, even with a expansive Sound Stage is really only a reminder of an experience when presenting a sound that may have been heard in a previous or later experience as an Omnidirectional produced End Sound. |
I do concur that the standard or reference should be the live performance. However, if a stereo system can reproduce even better sonic quality or effects w/o artificial / overdone sweetening, I consider it a bonus rather than something unnatural. The reason is as follows: In a concert hall, the sonic quality perceived by you and me is heavily dependent on the acoustic treatment and where you sit. Whether your experience is excellent or just so-so is subjective and can vary greatly due to these factors, making it difficult to use as a reliable reference for live concert sound. I am located in Palm Beach County, FL, and the concert hall I’ve attended is the Kravis Center in the City of West Palm Beach. Although the seating is very spacious and comfortable, I’ve always felt the acoustics leave something to be desired. One time, we went to Miami New World Center, a relatively new concert hall (open in 2011) designed by renown architect Frank Gehry (designer of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao in Spain). That time, we were in less preferable sitting area but the sonic effect we had perceived is well better, closer to if not outperforming the experience we had in Berliner Philharmonie, home to the Berlin Philharimonic Orchestra. Through proper recording techniques using multiple microphone placements and careful mixing, a live concert performance can be recreated more faithfully—without undue influence from the concert hall’s acoustics or the listener’s seating position. I believe a heat map, like the one shown below, is one of the best ways to illustrate sound source imaging and spatial cues within the soundstage. More pin-pointed sources (such as a solo instrument) are represented by smaller contours with concentrated peaks, while larger, fuzzier contours with less dense peaks represent sections of grouped instruments in an orchestra. The deep blue areas indicate the dark background between sources, highlighting instrument separation. Of course, the contour represents the depth of the soundstage. Even the larger, fuzzier contours still retain their locational presence. I often cross-check whether the spatial positioning of instruments or vocals I perceive from the recording or stereo system aligns with the actual layout of performers on stage—when video or images are available. With a well-produced recording, the answer is often yes.
|
Is it possible to really know what you're doing? In relation to the above and as a result of my experiences had when it comes to the following: Synergy the combined power of a group of things when they are working together that is greater than the total power achieved by each working separately: No I do not know what I am doing !!! The occurrence manifests with no knowledge of the impact to be encountered prior to making an addition that has the capability to produce an End Sound that has a discernible difference for the quality of the End Sound and hence, create synergy. Once having had the experience, I am then well placed to make a suggestion that in a particular system a use of a particular device created a End Sound that was spectacular. Once having had the experience, I am not well placed to suggest doing identical in another system and listening space will create something that will transfer in quality to another system. |
Those of us who mainly listen to ’classical’ music do indeed have a reference / standard in live, unamplified performances in concert hall acoustics. These concert hall acoustics however do not offer a clear locational presence within a soundstage especially if several performers are playing simultaneously. Try a large-scale Mahler symphony where at times over 100 musicians are playing simultaneously, often loudly. Even when Mahler throttles back to say, a mandolin solo, the hall acoustics still dominate directivity! See the MBL reference in my previous post ... |
Agree 100% - speakers are the most important component because of their inherent colourations and interference effects of drivers with each other and with the room. But you missed a very important consideration - are they designed to emulate a point source of sound? Answering this simple question can eliminate 99% of speakers! Not to mention, antagonising the 99% of audiophiles who own those speakers. There is an interesting viewpoint on MBL's website: Company |
@emergingsoul said: "...does anyone really understand what they’re buying absent being an engineering tech savvy individual.... I think if it were based purely on engineering, one could do this in what I referred to above as a "holistic" approach, using specs and compatibility, room analysis and the like. My experience has been that every piece of equipment has some characteristic (coloration?)* that requires a more nuanced approach to matching pieces to achieve a result that works as a system. And that doesn’t even address room acoustics and placement (which again, can be done remotely by analysis but ultimately, to me, is also fine tuning by ear). I addressed your original question by observing that I don’t have an holistic approach to system building, since I need to hear the various components in combination in a given room, taking account of set up and placement. I readily admit I’m a subjectivist and don’t rely on specs or measurements alone, though I respect the engineering aspects and some of the basic issues like matching speaker and appropriate amp, impedance, gain, etc. *One thing I've observed on my journey in audio is that you often don't know there is a coloration until it is absent. That is often a revelation. |
I agree that a reference / standard needs to be established. Former dictionary such as Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines a stereo(phonic) system as a system of sound recording or reproduction using two or more separate channels to produce a more realistic effect by capturing the spatial dimensions of a performance. So, imho, two keys elements defines a reference stereo system: 1. Realistic effect; and 2. Spatial dimensions. In my pursuit of a reference audio system, I aim to achieve a setup that faithfully reproduces the tonal character (timbre) of instruments and voices with a high degree of accuracy. This includes precise imaging—where each sound source is rendered with a clear, stable, and locational presence within the soundstage. So, I were to lay out a specific metric for the reference system including: 1. Timbre accuracy; 2. Imaging; and 3. SS width, depth and height. This metric may not be measurable instrumentally, but it can certainly be perceived in your listening space with a good pair of ears and a discerning mind. I believe you could always expand this metric to include many more elements you consider paramount. But bear with me for being simple-minded—and tell me, are you there yet? |
Interesting philosophical comments throughout. I guess my real focus was related to the technical aspects of audio systems. Given how complex these mystery boxes are, does anyone really understand what they're buying absent being an engineering tech savvy individual and there are many of them here on this forum giving great advice.
|
People need a reference (and standard) in sound. So, they can start the audio from a standard point. And they know their goals. These points should be repeatable to everyone but no audio system is repeatable. My audio system can be a standard and reference. It’s closest to the original sound, affordable, and repeatable. Yes. I’ve reached the bottom. Those who reached the bottom, please post links your system. Showing a picture is no meaning in audio. Alex/WTA
|
The people who would claim this are typically the least trustworthy, and are inevitably trying to sell you something. |
Oh, many folks do! And then they keep digging. @lanx0003 Playful sarcasm aside, your post is right on point. |
The world of high-fidelity audio is like an ocean — beautiful, vast, and deceptively mysterious. On the surface, it might seem as simple as riding the waves: just plug in a few components and enjoy the music. But the water runs deep — diving in requires not only a wealth of knowledge but also a touch of fortune. And the deeper you go, the more you realize just how layered and complex it truly is especially in the following areas:
In the world of music reproduction, you don’t just listen — you learn, test, tweak, and invest. The audio hobby is as rewarding as it is demanding. Like diving into deep water, it’s not something to approach unprepared. It requires a blend of curiosity, patience, critical thinking, and yes a measure of financial flexibility to navigate meaningfully. And no matter how deep you go, you'll never quite reach the bottom. |
I hope I do not get long winded, as I would like to keep this short, but of my experience. I just want to say, I am happy to be part of this community, because it allows us all, with the sharing of a common interest. Even with the back-and-forth disagreements that are too prevalent here, it shows a human side of us, the goal to listen and enjoy music, and sound, with whatever your means are to get there. My childhood was listening to my dad’s big band, swing, Sinatra, B.Holiday, Sergio Mendez, and more, you get the idea. His system was a pair of AR2AX loudspeakers, a Fisher 500C, and a Dual 1219 / Shure V15 something, and he never listened to the tuner. The speakers, based on my mom’s decor, required 50 ft runs of speaker cable from the amp. Very nice overall, but I heard (not my dad) the 500C output stage not fulfilling the necessary job at hand (this was before I was 10). I was a singing contributor of school choirs until HS graduation. I was also involved in the gear part. I was grateful I had an ear for listening. This led me to the encouragement I gave my dad to replace the Fisher with a Sansui 8 Deluxe, based on my readings and research. The Fisher became mine, and I purchased/owned a pair of Klipsch Cornwall, the mirror imaged verticals, from my music teacher, who upgraded to Khorns. The Sansui GAVE LIFE to the 2AXs, that even Melvin, my dad, experienced, and so much appreciated. I suspected then that I was a solid- state guy, although I had several tube pieces, amp and pre, come in and out of my system, throughout the years. Many consulting jobs of mine were working alongside a decorator, and I needed to change some perspectives of mine. Many of these systems were set up where the speakers were never intended to be listened to from a sweet spot. However, I still needed to find out from the clients, what they were looking (listening) for. BTW, in the background, listening to Nothing Else Matters through FM 95.7 THE HOG, out of Daytona, as it sounds awesome............ I have stated this many times: if every recording "sounded" as good as your favorite "best sounding", the jumping from one piece to another would be easier, and lesser, imo. Two of my favorite amps, as they are both great, do different things from each other with the same recordings in my system. And, they also have similarities. I enjoy them both but am at a point I find it hard to lift them. Anyway, everything we do with changes/upgrades is to enjoy the music, the sound, or both. Recordings do not equal the sound of live unamplified music, but the "musicianship" and the "composition" are present in full bloom. We can still get a great deal of information off of our recordings, in the manor of which we decide, and enjoy for a few different reasons. You need to know what "listening characteristics" are important to you (the real point of all of this gab). I do not believe there is a single system we can all enjoy equally (live with), based on our tastes. Well, with unlimited funds and a room built for the job....maybe. My best, MrD. |
@knotscott That's a great idea in your post about developing a taste for what you like. If you're a classical music fan, attend a performance of an orchestra, or if you like string quartets, attend a performance. Likewise if you like Jazz, go to a jazz club (you get the idea). Whether you like something or hate something at least you'll have a preference and that's probably a good place to start when you audition speakers. You'll be disappointed by all of them in some way but as you keep listening, you'll figure it out. |
I would say that the first step is for a person to determine what type of speakers they prefer. That is, not brand or model; but rather speaker architecture. Is it open baffle? Planar? Stand-mount with subs? Active or passive? One of these will likely agree with a given room better than others. If one finds ported enclosures unworthy of consideration, they are in luck for they can now safely ignore 90% of speakers on earth. Why are 90% of speakers ported? Because glueing one foot of ABS pipe into a 2" hole in the cabinet is a heck of a lot cheaper than a second woofer. Once one is settled on a speaker type, they are free to narrow it down further to make / model. Then, to find amps that makes their new speakers smile and sing! This step is perhaps the most crucial. Many people think it's easy, but it's not. Then, to locate an excellent preamp; or, at least, one good enough to make their sources shine. @pindac often speaks of the End Sound in his thoughtful posts, and that is a very good concept indeed because the end sound is not determined by any single component, but rather by the entire system coming together as one in a holistic way. |
There is another way, a shortcut to perfect sound. The company Audio Note UK provide everything you need for music enjoyment. Starting from mains cable, CDP, CDT, DAC, Amps, interconnects to speakers and speaker cables. Best of all their components are matched for most natural and emotional sound. The Audio Note components are separated in so called performance performance levels. The different levels allows you to compose a system fitting your budget without sacrificing the unmatched emotional Audio Note sound. It might seem boring, but allows you to simply enjoy music from day one. Audio Note UK knows what they are doing - always aiming for the most natural and emotional sound! |
+1. Why merry-go-round constant upgrade? Why do 99% a’philes listen by themselves? Why is this great/beautiful music listening activity a lonely hobby? Few decades ago, many people enjoy music, singing, and dance. Why not anymore? The musicality of hi-fi is declining. There are people who don’t want you to know the truth. It’s just good business. Alex/WTA
|
In addition to what others have mentioned, I relied on Stereophile reviews and on seeing what gear manufacturers and dealers chose to use at a Stereophile-sponsored audio show I attended. I was fortunate also to know a dealer who sold me his demo units of the amplifier that was used in designing the speakers I bought (and still have). That helped greatly in getting the crucial match between amp and speakers. At a couple dealers I had heard the speakers with other amps, and these amps sounded better. So, I also relied on two high-end dealers whose ears and knowledge I respected to assemble the core of my system. |
Unfortunately, dealers have to pay for the equipment before they can display it and therefore diversity of what they have available is limited. I have tried so often to pursue components that dealers don’t even have even though they represent the brand. While There are exceptions fortunately, I’m finding more and more dealers have no experience with what they are selling. there are a lot of phenomenal components out there which I would love to explore but getting to them and understanding them better by actually listening to them it’s just not possible. There are people out there who truly understand what goes on inside all the mystery boxes but this is limited and I hate spending so much time talking to these people when know I probably won’t buy anything from them, but I really appreciate the time they spend with me. I don’t think anybody really enjoys making decisions about what audio equipment they buy because of all the poor marketing materials they have to read through and then in the end they have no clue at all about what they’re buying. |
I can relate to or understand every experience and/or perspective presented thus far in this thread. Is it difficult, is it easy? Its all of the above, you just have to experience it for yourself, I think this 'hobby' is more a journey than some set path to some precise destination. And so many paths to follow on this journey, its all pretty mind boggling. On the other hand one could turn off the curiosity cap. |
@onhwy61 stated " You don't have to know anything, you can just pay somebody who does know. There was a time when that was the role of the audio dealer. " I have to agree with this, when I first needed to grasp what was beyond where I was with an Audio System after a period of time having a dedicated audio set up. I was very very very fortunate to have met a individual involved the HiFi Confidential near Victoria Train Station in London. The member of the Team in HiFi Confidential who's name was Luigi, knew I was tight for cash, with a young family and not too well paying job. Luigi also knew my passion to experience and learn audio system related matters. Over the course of 18 months or more after my initial visit, I was invited to the premises on quite a few occasions to experience new assemblies of Analogue Sourced Set Ups in the dedicated listening room. I would be given a description of the equipment and left to do my thing, only occasionally checked in on, to experience my brought along LP's for an hour or more. This was gifted with no obligation, I may have not remunerated anybody from HiFi Confidential for their support or sale items. I got sound I was to become familiar with and use it as a measure at other demo's and I am still the same enthusiast today, making audio encounters available to others without no concerns for receiving anything. Others where audio is the shared interest are certainly being treated the same way that I have indelible memories of being treated. |
Back in the day, I’d go to a HiFi store and listen to what was new nd exciting. Today most of those stores are closed. It really makes it hard to roll equipment in my system. Having said that, I’m really happy with my current system. I will update my DAC eventually, but I’m in no real hurry. I like the sound of ladder DAC’s, so I’ll probably stick with one of them, but. |
You don't have to know anything, you can just pay somebody who does know. There was a time when that was the role of the audio dealer. Now people are into the "journey" and want to make their own choices. Some people quickly figure stuff out and others wander thru the desert. At some point it really doesn't matter because we're not designing commercial aircraft where mistakes can cost lives. |
@emergingsoul Within the interest in audio equipment there are only a few things that matter. The First is how one Weds to the Source Material, are they a Tape, Vinyl Album, CD, Streamed / File user. The Second is whether one is Monogamous in their being Wed to a Source Material, or if one is Polygamous in how they Wed to a Source Material. Then what matters, is whether one is content with only one version of the Source Materials embedded data being extracted and sent or if one is content only when being able to have a selection of options on how embedded data is extracted to be sent. An embedded data once extracted is speedily converted to a electrical energy to undertake a Journey where the electrical energy will be Amplified / Gain Added. The electrical energy is to travel through a selection of devices used to add additional Amplification / Gain. Electrical Energy is not beamed it needs a conduit to travel both within a device and external to a device. Each Device and Umbilical used as the connection between devices are quite Capable of adding a trait of the design that will be detectable as an audible influence. The Experience being anticipated once the Data is extracted is End Sound, usually in the form of Music. Downstream of the Data extraction any device used to manage the electrical energy / sent signal has the capacity to influence the End Sound to be produced. The Speaker which is the only device in use downstream of the embedded data being extracted and sent, is the only device in the set up able to produce sound. Speakers have a vast range of discernible differences in how a End Sound is produced and being perceived as a Sound. Why would a person be Monogamous in relation to devices and ancillaries used to create a Audio System. Why would a person be Polygamous in relation to devices and ancillaries used to create a Audio System. For myself locking myself into a marriage of one choice of devices makes the audio experience bland, the option to intervene and produce End Sound that stands out for its qualities, but delivers an injection of a differing to the influence on the End Sound, is where I am most content as an enthusiast of creating Audio Systems. In Audio being Faithful to a intent for a systems creation or to a Philosophy of how a system should be produced will supply a very satisfying musical encounter. It also limits exposing oneself to experiences and broadening the learning through extending the musical encounters that can be had, which is a commodity most with an interest in audio equipment seeks out. |
I think the OP is alluding to whether there is a holistic approach to system building, rather than trial and error. Sure there are some basics in terms of matching power/current needs from amp to speakers and some impedance/gain issues in the entire chain, but for me, I cannot look at specs on paper and conclude that a given set up is going to sound "real," leaving aside the room and set up of the system with a given room (the acoustics part, rather than the electronics/signal part). I built my current main system through trial and some minimal error- improving what needed to be changed to get it closer to my ideal. Some of those improvements might be regarded as "lateral" rather than "upgrades" based on price, others (like turntable isolation) were done of necessity, still others based on my experience from past set ups (electrical power). I already knew a lot of what the core components did well and where they were lacking in this current room set up so had to learn how to take better advantage of a new room. Some of that experience told me what tubes I preferred in certain positions in voicing the system but these were refinements based on long experience with the particular gear in combination. The system is "tweaked" to that degree and a change in phono cartridge from a few other "high end" brands to another one "brought it home" that last iota--which was only revealed once everything else was in sync. This still leaves me with the conclusion that I have no universal approach to system building in the sense that I can take the abstract at a given budget for a particular room and apply a view or philosophy that will yield a predicted result with a given combination of unfamiliar components in a given room. Instead, it is listening in situ in a controlled environment that has enabled me to assemble and optimize what I had. My vintage system, based largely on 50+ year old components which I have owned since they were new, is in some ways, more forgiving and I was replicating what I had in place in 1975 (with a few substitutions). But, though that system sounds great for what it is, it represents a "time capsule" system and not an attempt at state of the art reproduction (though it can be very convincing on certain program material). |
Finding balance and perspective can hard for people who have the discretionary time and money for audio. Sometimes when I find myself obsessing over audio, I look at other parts of my life and the world and suspect that I could be doing other things. Maybe even helping others. It helps restore my confidence that my audio is good enough. |
I do like the speaker and amp rolling. You could always get a equilizer to change the sound if your brain becomes fatigued to your sound. The body produces endorphins when it's happy like the runners high. It could just be from a physiology standpoint that we get use to the sound and don't get the runners high and it requires a change to get that back. Maybe we could get a gov grant to buy expensive equipment and study the physiology of addiction. Off to usaid I go. Enjoy the music and the hunt. |
I think we sometimes make it too complicated. It helps, of course, to have dealers or others that you can trust for guidance. There are tons of readily available information for the discerning- sometimes too much. At the end of the day, how does it sound to you? Its not about trying to meet some mythical technical standard, or building a system according to what others think. Its not splitting atoms-its just finding equipment in your price range that make listening enjoyable, relaxing and keeps you coming back. Once you do that, there is always room for improvement but you've crossed the line. |
