When is your Hifi good enough?


Just wondering what makes people tick in regards to determining when things sound "good enough"?

For me I have a vision in my mind of how things should sound based on what I have heard over the years.  Once it sounds that way, I am done.   I can still enjoy listening to other sounds or sounds that omit some things I might want otherwise but if I do not get regular samplings of "that sound" I probably start to wonder.
128x128mapman
Al, I am similar I think.

I often say you have to know what your target is before you can hit it.

Once you hit it, what more is there? Until you stop hitting it. Then the question becomes why? It could just be us having a bad day or going through a bad time. Or something with the power, weather, who knows? All the more reason to not jump to conclusions too quickly with this stuff. Its often very nebulous why things sound the way they do to us. The equipment merry go round is never a good answer. You have to be able to get off that from time to time. Unless one just likes to play with different gear, which is fine.

Also I agree with dweller.   I can enjoy listening to anything for a period as long as no audible distortion.  What floats ones boat beyond that is highly subjective I would say.   Many tasty ways to make soup, in either small or large portions.  large portions tend to cost more though if equally tasty.
I interpret this question as a variation of "at what point does diminishing returns start to set in?"  I take it as axiomatic that any system, from the intro audiophile to those pushing the SOTA, can be improved upon.  For me it comes down to a case of incremental money spent and added system complexity versus current enjoyment levels.  I look at some people's system pages and they have listed 30+ components (including tweaks) in single source systems.  I just don't want a system that has that many variables.  Nor do I want to spend $100k plus either.  I became an audiophile when $5,000 was a very expensive component and only a single company made a loudspeaker costing more than $10,000.  When I listen to systems costing multiples of what my current setup costs I marvel at the sound, but I still find myself perfectly content with what I have.

Among people who post here I suspect I'm a little more forgiving of sound quality than most.  To give an example, I recently had to replace a tube in my preamp so I ran the system without a preamp with the D/A going directly into the power amp.  I strongly prefer the sound of the system with the preamp, but it still sounded great without it and after a few days of acclimation I really didn't miss the preamp.  Push come to shove I could live with my Fisher 400/Monitor Audio Studio 20 system as my only system.  That system does everything Dweller outlines in his post.  But then again, that's just me.
Mapman,

You make a good point that applies to me:

Is it my system or is it the recording? 

In the future I will keep that in mind and will attempt to answer that question first before I do anything else.

Something I never expected from this hobby has been the realization that hifi reveals poor recordings. It reminded me of when I was a young man how I avoided Motown cassettes/8-tracks because they sounded so awful and CBS/Columbia tapes usually sounded better than other labels. I had forgotten how disappointed I was when I first obtained Stevie Wonder's "Innervisions" on tape. Whoah! That hiss!

Thanks,
It’s just like a having an HD TV. Picture quality varies greatly with source material. But same source material all still looks much more similar and below average by current standards on my old fashioned low res analog CRT 10" Zenith that's still kicking.
First and foremost for me, the music has to sound like music.  Set aside for a moment that I have absolutely no idea what the actual recording process was or what the recording engineer heard,  instruments must sound like instruments that I am familiar with.

Notwithstanding that different pianos or violins will sound different.  I know a good violin or piano sound when I hear it.  Joe Sample's piano sounds totally different than Bob Jame's piano. 

I know what a cymbal sounds like.  Again, it does depend on the recording, because the engineer or artist may have used electronic instruments instead of the real thing.

But, first, it has to sound natural to me.  Space and dimension are separate and totally recording dependent.  Its hard to get space and dimensionality from electronic instruments that are wired directly into the mixing board.  But, place mikes in front of the instruments in space, then maybe you have something.
Is it natural?  is it too bright, too soft?  Do the artist step out of your speakers, place themselves in your room exactly as they were when the recording was made?  Yeah!!! there we are.

I have played classical violin, sax, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, etc.  I know what instruments are suppose to sound like.  That is one reason why I'm so critical of my system, music and sound.  Basically, I know what I like.   Others have their own criteria.

People can and will pick your system and styles apart, because to them, you don't know anything and they are the master.  But, they aren't the one listening in your home to your music.  your are.  They aren't the one that has to come out-of-pocket and purchase your equipment.you do.  If you enjoy the system (yeah it can be nice furniture also.  My turntable is made out of Rosewood and really is beautiful to me) and your music, and it doesn't drive you out of the room, and sounds real to you, then you are there.

Yes, you can (and often will) improve things, but, that will be in small incremental steps. 

enjoy