What makes a system compelling?

IMHO, much of the _magic_ in a _magical_ system is due to accurate retrieval and accurate reproduction of minute low-level details that are frequently obscured with lower resolution systems.

This is frequently accomplished more cheaply ane easily thru lower power tubes matched with high efficiency speakers - hence tbe current revival of SET and horns.

I don't mean to say it cannot be done well with other methods, and I'm not saying it's cheap if done where you frequently get goosebumps - I am saying it's a good bit less expensive _big grin_

As to slappy's "distorted ass-tubes" comment _grin_, hey Slappy, you either think maybe you're measuring the wrong things? _big grin_ IMHO most measurements are little more than marketing tools.

Caveat - when I grew up, if you listened to reproduced music, you were listening to tubes, SS wasn't on the market.

Tubes sound "right" to me. If digital or whatever eventually sounds "righter", I'll go digital or whatever _grin_

I am inclined to believe it is a fleeting happening. I have frequently had it on the introduction of something new, but I think you become accustomed to it quickly and are less impressed the next night. Unfortunately often you might be impressed only to change back and think you were crazy to think it was an improvement. The real question is to avoid retrogressing.

I think I recall years ago having such a compelling experience, but I am certain that my system now is far superior. This would suggest that I could find Rectolinear IIIs compelling, so it need not be after much equipment and experience.

I agree with Holzhauer, I think it goes back to what kind of sound I grew up with expecting music to sound like. I go back to the days of smoking pot and drinking until I pass out, listening to a Marantz receiver and large Advents, and of course vinyl. I have a expectation in my head as to what I am looking for my system to sound like. I think we all do.
The big problem is finding that sound.
I am on my third step in the process and I might be getting close. But I think I still have a way to go. I should just buy a pair of large Advents and a Marantz receiver and call it done. But what fun would that be?
Scott

It took me years of costly experimentation with both tubes and ss before I settled in on the new ARC stuff (which sounds more like solid state on the extremes but retains gobs of tube magic in the mids and how the images are portrayed..full, round with 3-D action). I have experienced what tbg has many times over up until now. I don't quite understand it but the synergy I have going hits the mark for me...not completely realistic, but better than most seats at the kimmel center in Philadelphia!

In my case my system becomes most compelling when I listening to a recording I would usually have little interest in. I know that sounds stupid, but it is true. It is then I am most conscious of listening to the effect my system has had on a recording. Often I find I will like the sound of these recordings even as I find little of merit in the actual content. It arrives for me as a sort evaluative opportunity. Even then, I would not go as far as saying that I will necessarily percieve this as an improvement in sound quality. There has been a change, and I hear it and think about it. There have been occations- so many occations, when I have heard a recording that I have consistantly enjoyed but could not make out the vocals or instruments because it all became confused in the mix. I could not capture it. When my system has suceeded in untangling this for me I am impressed and I am thankful.This music becomes all the more to me, and I get this much more of my music collection back. I get to have this from time to time- clarity, and I value it and the means by which I got it.