How do you determine your weakest link?

Warrenh, I would like to relay an anecdote to support GS5556' and Twl's points:

I listened to the Avalon Opus on Saturday using two different SS front ends: with Linn pre + Music Fidelity Amp, then with all SPECTRAL gear (twice the price). The SPECTRAL was very analytical and detailed, the music fidelity was very musical. (I have come to view musicality vs. resolution as one of the high end's great paradoxes) If I had heard the Opus through SPECTRAL only, I might have blamed the speaker for what I heard. The OPUS is voiced using the spectral, so I was a bit surprised. The Music Fidelity+Linn gave a powerfully musical and involving presentation through the OPUS.

The two SS set-ups were then used to drive Martin Logan Prodigy speakers. The Prodigy's did not resolve any differences in these two front ends. I fidgeted through this part of the audition.

Here is what I confirmed: (1) If the speakers are transparent enough, differences among front end components, including cable can be dramatic and compelling. (2) There is no substitute for learning the hard way.

As your system positively evolves two factors become increasingly more important, the room and the recordings. Once your system is capable of high volumes and deep bass a whole slew of room related issues arise. When your system starts to demonstrate transparency, dynamics and nuetrality, then you'll begin to notice how poorly recorded some of your favorite records are. There's a vast body of readily available knowledge on how to properly address room related issues. The quality of recordings is not so easily dealt with and I think it is the root of alot of disatisfaction among audiophiles. We want deep and wide soundstages from recordings that were concocted in a small studio. We want silky smooth strings from close mic'd violins. We want tons of details at the same time we demand a warm, full-bodied sound. Red Book digital standards only makes these goals more difficult to attain. All those Audiogon threads asking for a warm sounding cable, an analog sounding CD player, or a tube-like solid state amp are actually attempts to correct recording related issues.

That is an excellent point, and one I find happens frequently. It's only through some good references that I realize that it's the recording.

Onhwy61 has explained this perfectly. It's the room and the recordings what basically limits a system. One can work w/ the room, but not w/ the recordings. That is unless one wants to become a freak who listents to crap music that has been well recorded...

Since I got my Swans back from Modwright I have been letting things break in and adjust to my new place. Once I got rid of most glare (or find out its origin) I finally pinned down a nasty resonance in the crossover range (due to bad room acoustics). It was time to find out how much limiting my recordings really were. I decided to play one of my direct do disc LPs for the first time in this new setup: Lincoln Mayorga vol. III. AMAZING!!! What a difference. That's it. It became pointless to keep on spending more money improving stuff. I had reached the point of diminishing returns. And I had achieved my goal:

"A near field system capable of successfuly playing any recording of any type of music regardless of its recording quality."

The improvements that I had noticed to be cost effective was sending two of my power cords and one set of IC's to Jena Labs for deep immersion cryo. That brought a lower noise floor and better extension in the treble--substantial enough to give me goose bumps when playing trombones on substandard salsa recordings. So that's telling me in which direction I should steer...