You seem to be implying that the gap between different systems is smaller than the gap between different rooms.
First thanks
cd318 for your kind observation and attention to myself and posts...
But you underestimated what I say, and unvoluntarily misrepresented it...
You underestimated my argument because it is not about room treatment but about 3 simultaneous embeddings...And room treatment is only the point 3a, there are other 3 points: 3b,1, and 2.
These 4 points grouped in 3 parts define what I called the embeddings of any audio system...
You misrepresented my argument because, it will need a fool or someone who delude himself, to negate differences, great ones most of the times, between a low cost system and a highly costly one...
My argument is simply this: the difference between most audio systems is big, but not big enough most of the times to compared with an audio system rightly embedded according to the rules pertaining to these 4 points in 3 part embeddings...
If there is 3 rungs in the scale going to low, mid, and high, any electronic component pertaining to a rung of this scale is different with another on the same rung...But rightly embedded anyone of this element go from a rung to a higher rung entirely if it is rightly embedded with the 3 implementation protocols and parts pertaining to each one of these 4 methods :
1-The mechanical environment of each electronic component (vibrations-resonances controls)
2-The electrical grid of the room and of the house
3a-the "passive" room treatment with materials absorbant and reflective ones
3b-the "active" acoustical space modifications with reflectors, Helmholtz resonators, Schumann generators,etc
(We must not confuse room treatment 3a with acoustical space modifications 3b.)
In the universal race to upgrade and buy the ultimate high electronic components, people forget or ignore the right way to implement an audio system... The proof of that is simple: most people think that a better dac or amplifier or speakers will give to them the better sound magically by itself...The entire marketing industry promote that....Marginally someone speaks, generally to sell something, about vibrations or room treatment...Rarely about these 2 on the same page or article...And this 2 points are only half of my argument (4 points in 3 parts).. Then most people are unconscious of this fact: the real experience of an audiophile musical event is not the results of the electronics components only and "per se" but by far the results of a rightful implementation of them... The proof of that is easy to make....Which do you want: a mid system in an ideal room and house controlled environment ? Or a high cost system in a bad house room environment?
My most important point is that it is possible by homemade methods and materials or with very low cost products to create a complete relatively good implementation that will transform any audio system into his ideal peak potential working function...At least then projecting it on another rung of the scale quality ratio/ price...This is my experience and good news...Interpreting that like a negation of the difference in quality between for example an amplifier like my Sansui versus a Top high end ZOTL Berning amplifier( I dream to buy one) is simplistic...There is differences between electronic components...But it is not the important half of the story...This is my point...I live happy now with my Sansui...Guess why?
My best wishes to you....
" My car is bigger than your male organ" Groucho Marx
