2. tech-talk
  3. 169525-140

System building; a meditation

System building; a meditation

This is an offshoot of a posting I made in a different thread; that is, what is one’s approach to building a system out of various components that maximizes the sonic attributes of the combination of particular components?There’s been some push-back on “tweaks” but leave that to the side for now. How does one select what components to include in a system, putting to one side budgetary constraints? (the budget thing can be solved in several ways, including through used and through a deliberate strategy to acquire certain components over time that achieve a certain result- my point being, if it weren’t simply a constraint of capital, how does one choose?)

There seem to be a few rules that we abide by- the relationship of amp to speaker being fundamental. The choice of front end –from DIY digital to high end analog is also a choice, but I’ll be agnostic in this regard even though I came up through the LP and still regard it as the mainstream medium of choice, simply because of the wealth of material in older records.

How do people choose the combinations of equipment they employ? Is it happenstance, the gradual upgrading of each component to a high standard or some other benchmark for what the system is supposed to do that necessitates certain choices?

For what it is worth, I don’t endorse one single approach; I went from electrostat listening (including ribbon tweets and subs) to horns, sort of (Avantgardes plus subs) and SET as one choice, but have heard marvelous systems using larger, relatively inefficient dynamic set ups (Magico; Rockport, TG, etc.) combined with big solid state power that left a very positive impression.

How do you sort through the thicket? It isn’t just specs, and listening within your system to evaluate is an ideal, but I’m opening this up to system building in general—what approach do you take? I’m not sure there is a single formala, but thought it worth exploring since it seems to be an undercurrent in a lot of equipment changes without addressing the “why?” of it or how one makes these choices.

I know that we are mired in a subjective hobby, and almost every system is different, even if the components are the same in a different room, but thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion. If not, the lack of responses will prove me wrong. I don’t have a single answer to this FWIW.


128x128whart
mikelavigne
2,199 posts
 
@sandthemall

Anyway, I believe the room is like a fingerprint. Even if you build a dedicated listening room, you are simply building a better fingerprint. Symmetry helps but nothing neutral about it. But, yes it would be nice to have a dedicated listening room again.

i disagree.

actually the idea is that when you get your room synergy and signal path maturity to a certain place the room, speakers and signal path disappear. which is attainable, not to be confused with actually sounding like real life, which is not attainable.

of course there are many degrees of speakers and rooms disappearing. it’s like peeling an onion, with dozens of layers to work through, getting all the way there. and not every recording plays to the disappearing act equally.

what’s interesting is that the closer you get to it, the more you hear where the problems are. removing the most egregious restrictions to synergy is the hardest, after that, and you ’get it’ about where you are going it just flows as the little things stick out like sore thumbs.
sandthemall
544 posts
 
@mikelavigne 

...well of course, that's the idea (that those things disappear). That's what we all aim for. But the physical speaker itself is also imprinting on the effect of the room. You being in the room is another factor. This is what I mean by (sonic) 'fingerprint'.   

You may get very close to what you want with one system while another person may choose another approach, in a different room...with different components. They may even sound very similar. But they cannot be. It's almost impossible. Each room is unique...as is the shape of our own ears.

You can disagree with me, that's fine. But I believe otherwise.


tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,916 posts
 
Exactly why i recorded my own references, i was there to hear the “ original “ disappearance… and specificity, and impact and bloom, reverberation, decay, attack….

At the highest level of illusion, we should strive for exact duplication

Perhaps it is asymptotic…perhaps not. One way to assure that outcome , would be to aim low…trading colorations like flavors in a recipie…

Nothing wrong with that, The Cat does so enjoy chasing own tail,
asvjerry's avatar
asvjerry
4,680 posts
 
@tomic601 ....Google 'cat in a truck commercial' and watch the 1:00 version... ;)

I've got one that plays fetch already; Zed will do so at the drop of a ball.
It's the other tricks that'll take awhile...

Our personal 'tail chases' are a whole different issue...and the training certainly took awhile as well. ;)

Play loud and often, J
orgillian197
119 posts
 
Back in the day, just out of college, we all had stereos but a rare few had well constructed systems. Hearing those, along with visits to area stereo stores (not big boxes), gave clues as to what components (and brands) to seek, within budget of course.

But in thinking about the question, 43 years now since I began reaching beyond just a "stereo", it's always started with the speakers and worked on through media source (analog and digital), then amp, then pre-amp, then any tweaks, cables, etc. And with the caveat that, for me, especially at lower income levels, I often spent far more yearly on the music itself (lps, cds, dvds) than on the system.
More to discover