Your Second System

I specifically design for a different style. Unless you spend vast quantities of money, it is very hard to get a system that does everything equally well. That is the way Nature requires it.

I listen to all types of music from folk, to techno, to symphonies, to heavy metal, so I have been collecting gear in order to eventually (when I have more room) have two totally separate systems. One for acoustic/vocal/jazz and one for electronic/symphonic/metal.

Some people say that you should spend all your money on one "good" system but I feel you can get more with less cost by having two carefully-put-together systems. It is a sort of distributed optimization that can give you 1+1=3 if done right. It is a fun and less costly way to have your cake and eat it too.

Arthur

In my case,I just have enough components to assemble 3 complete systems.The best gear are on my primary system .
George

KThomas,

Good question. Thus far, I’ve put together 4 systems, 3 posted here with 1 to go.

My approach to this hobby, and system building in particular, has been somewhat flipped from the normal "one system does all" pursuit / approach. For sure, there’s nothing wrong with this approach and my chosen route was borne out of inexperience, a desire to learn as much as possible, and the blessing of having the resources to have multiple systems.

When jumping into this hobby, it quickly became clear that there might not be one perfect system and that one could get very frustrated chasing the ever elusive holy grail, thinking you’ve found it, only to hear something totally new a week or month later that I “had” to have.

Living in Hong Kong, where we’re blessed to have virtually the entire gamut of Hi-Fi available – from uber-kit to the latest Chi-Hi-Fi and usually in the same building, it was a bit overwhelming at first. After coming to terms with what I liked, I actively sought advice from those whom shared the same leanings. This has been a big help when separating the wheat from the chaff kit-wise. An awful lot of research and auditioning helped hone my focus with respect to identifying my tastes.

So, rather than go for the super system on the first go, I decided to take my time and put together various systems that differ in approach; i.e., all tube, all SS, SS/tube hybrid, etc. In doing so, my aim was to enjoy each one and to understand what appealed to devotees of a particular approach. This way I could assess the differences of each and migrate towards that sound which I liked best at a comfortable pace. In kind, I've sought to assess different speaker types as well, i.e., multi-driver, full range single driver (with super tweeter), ported, sealed, etc. Right now, I would put myself more in the tube kit / hi efficiency speaker camp, but I appreciate the other kit as well. Accordingly, like food or anything else, variety is the spice of life!

As far as the approach to each particular system, when putting together the general principals I try to follow are . . .

First thing that comes to mind would be that the components should exhibit a certain amount of synergy. An obvious example that comes to mind would be speaker/amp matching. In my experience, getting this correct saves a lot of time and money.

The second thing was to try to understand what the designer of the equipment had in mind and, if possible, find out what components they used when voicing their products. In line with this, I sought to avoid making changes just for the sake of change itself. Cost consideration is a fact of life when designing products and no doubt that, initiated in the proper fashion, modding/tweaking can yield benefits. However, if one is too smart by half when trying to “improve” on the original design, more often than not, these changes throw the individual component and system out of balance.

Thirdly, the system should fit the room/space and not overpower it sonically or aesthetically. While sound is always the most important consideration, in as much as possible, matching the kit to the decor of the room is crucial for me. More simply put, the system must fit in the room and not the other way around. I would rather do without than force a square peg in a round whole.

Lastly, trust your own ears and take the time to enjoy the process.

Cheers,
Garry

I have 2 primary systems and multiple "other systems". I've posted 3 of them here (although they're a little out of date at present).

My 2 primary systems are somewhat different in character, and one of them is a dual purpose (home theater and 2 channel). But I've taken some care in assembling both. The other systems exist because 1) I have a room in which I desire music (eg, our living room), and 2) I have equipment that's been rolled out of one of my primary systems and I'm not yet ready to sell.

I prefer listening on one of my primary systems - and when my wife is home she prefers that too (she doesn't like my music choices nor volume levels), but these rooms are in the basement and now and then I like being upstairs with some daylight. Also, my living room systems is somewhat of a vintage system that's fun to listen to. I also have a vacation home with a modest system set up there and it's my "primary" system when at that house.

I have three high quality audio systems - each in a different part of our house and each designed with a different purpose in mind.

The reference system resides in a dedicated listening room and really does all types of music exceedingly well. I built the room and the system with the primary objective of getting as close as possible to the sound of a live orchestra. In order to achieve this, the system involves serious amplification horsepower (almost 1kW per channel, including the amplification built into the woofer module of the speakers), speakers that can move a lot of air, and a room with acoustics engineered for optimal two-channel reproduction. All the components were chosen with an eye toward exceptional refinement, timbral accuracy, and tonal neutrality. The system also excels at dynamics, PRaT and truly full-range frequency extension.

I designed a second system for our living room area based around low-powered 300B SET amplification and MTM two-way floorstanders. The objective of the system is to reproduce small scale acoustic music (small-group jazz and classical chamber music) with all the presence and intimacy you can get with this style of system. The reference system is technically better even with the music that plays to the strengths of the smaller system, but there is an engaging warmth, presence and intimacy to the SET system that has a certain attraction. As a practical matter, this system also provides music in areas of our house where we often dine or entertain and where the big system does not effectively "reach."

There is a third system in our bedroom that is designed to be a manageably sized system capable of very high fidelity reproduction of small scale music at low to moderate volume levels. The system is based around single point source, crossoverless, speakers using full range drivers and Gainclone amplification. The components were chosen at least in part for their small size and their ability to be left powered up 24/7 with minimal generation of heat. This little system is fast as lightning and exceptionally coherent. At the same time, it is very musical. The tonal balance is excellent.

Even though the level of investment in these three systems varies widely, each one of them provides a very engaging, musical listening experience.