High Performance Audio - The End?

Steve Guttenberg is a good guy i like him ...Great human being for me....

But his own audio room reveal to me that reviewing different gear all the time he does not takes the care to embed them rightfully, like many reviewers did, and how to review speakers in a non treated, non controlled room ? In a non controlled electrical grid? And sometimes with no controls of vibrations....

All music sound better on a good embedded audio system...

Any system non embedded has no relation with itself embedded rightfully in S.Q.... No relation at all...It is in no way the same system...

ANY audio system sound way less better in non controlled house embeddings and like heaven in the controlled house embeddings...But the owner has no means to know it, because he dont have a comparison point...Frustrated by his system he will upgrade parts at great cost without ever listening to what his actual system potential can do....

How do we know our system?

Not by paying a big price in money for good enginneering, no, not at all... By embedding it only, and it will sound good whatever the price most of the times...

Why?

Because Generic electronic design engineering is one part of the equation, the 3 others specific parts weigh more, most of the times, especially if your audio system was well chosen in the first place...

These 3 parts are: the mechanical (vibrations/resonance) dimension, the electrical grid of the house with his noise floor, the acoustic of a room....The acoustic of the room is so powerful that NOTHING compare to its transformative power....
Speakers of 1000 dollars can sound better in their controlled room than 20,000 dollars one in a non controlled room....You dont trust me? Consult a serious acoustician, not a seller....I learn it by hard work myself...

There is 4 parts who plays a role in audio installation and choices, the most important are not the electronic design component but their embeddings...

The reason is simple most good electronical design component can be exhanged for another different but well designed one with no absolute lost in S.Q. at worst a relatively minus one....

The choice of an electronic component is never free it is linked to the money available... And for sure a 100,000 amplifier is most of the times better than a 10,000... The decision to embed an audio system is low cost if you make it yourself and it takes time but not money....

But "no embeddings" at all will gives a hellish audio system or one under his own potential, even if you like it as it is ; but embedding it will give you heaven....

In conclusion there is some truth to Guttenberg observation aboutclimbing the ladder of price in audio...It is a waste if you donrt embed your system, whatever the price, it will be a waste...

For me i own a 500 dollars system including all and so good that upgrading it seems ridiculous for the price i will need to pay for exceeding its already good S.Q. ( around 15,000 dollars )
My system gives me all: dynamic, imaging, 3-d holography, sound completely free from the speakers and encompassing me or the room in my 2 positions of listenings... I cannot even chose between nearfield and regular position because each is marvellous.... I reach that by embedding what i have, not by paying it....

John, !00% agree. That’s probably the reason why I’ve mostly listened to vinyl for the last 30 years. The convenience and now the higher quality of streaming is now getting me to embrace digital.

@desktopguy,

’One of the first sonic decision points I faced in my early days of audio gear appreciation was rather similar: many in the hobby are proponents of "neutrality," "accuracy," and "detail," while others are more interested in "musical," even "romantic" sounding gear. I was going to much live music all through those years (jazz & classical, primarily)--and I realized I prefer "musical" gear simply because music I knew well (once or twice recorded in front of me) retained its core sound & "feel" better on the "musical" gear than the other kind.

These divergent sonic concepts have pursued me into headphone audio, where treble-cannon headphones are often the most prized (they give me a headache).’


That sounds like my preferences too. Although I also want accuracy, I’m very much in the ’musical/romantic’ (harmonics/timbre) camp.



@frogman,

’Personally, I don’t buy the “certain gear for certain music” approach.’

I don’t want to either, I too want a universal loudspeaker that handles most music well, but how do I know exactly what George Martin and Geoff Emerick heard whilst recording the Beatles unless I have similar speakers to what they used at Abbey Road studio 2, 1962-70?

[apparently they had Altec 605A’s in Studio 2 and the other rooms used a pair of Tannoy Golds! - I have Tannoy Berkeley’s and that might be near enough!]

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/abbey-road-speakers-beatletime.755817/



@calvinandhobbes.

Great post!

’I will say that my personal opinion (which aligns with Steve Guttenberg’s opinion posted here) is that too much focus on detail and resolution seems to detract from musicality for me.’

Yes, detail, often at the expense of harmonics, as loved by fans of P.R.A.T. (pace, rhythm and timing).


’To me, some audio systems sound "right" from a clinical, "objective" standpoint, but leave me cold from the simple perspective of enjoying music listening.’


Happens all too often at shows. Seems somehow more noticeable with uber-expensive gear. Maybe due to my elevated expectations.


’I will say that I think it is possible to build an audio system that does everything right,’


You’re an optimist, good for you!

Me, I’d settle for one that’s has a very good all round balance.

A proficient jack of all trades rather than just a master of one.

But finding that elusive balance is another matter.

My experience is that recordings which are compressed sounding, often classical and jazz cheap multi-disc CD compilations will be more annoying on high end gear. They sound like MP3s. I listen to a lot of 78s, including acoustical recordings. They have natural dynamics and keep sounding more colorful and detailed as my equipment became more resolving/revealing. Otherwise, any decently recorded/mastered recording sounds better on higher end equipment or great vintage tube gear (like a Mac 30, 225 or 240 amp). I suppose that Guttenberg was referring to music I generally don’t listen to, recordings from 1995 (retro, punk, rock, hip hop, rap, etc). E.g. Steely Dan and Yello recordings keep sounding better and better with higher end gear. They start out as meticulously well recorded albums.  @millercarbon-I am in complete agreement to your last comment.  Each recording is different (labels can have a "house" sound due to engineering, recording venue, miking, etc) and I am sorry I don't have sufficient time to listen more.

My wife loves my system's improvements over the years because she listens to 70s and 80s rock, including heavy metal.  My ML Monolith III stats were awful sounding to her.  The Legacy speakers could handle the bass and dynamics of rock without brightning/hardening the sound.  Her Berlin and Foreigner CDs sound almost analog like.  I can listen to her Metallica and Prong "music."  I have sold 18,000 records over the past 40 years, mostly due to performance reasons and  due to poor mastering (compression-those 50s and 60s LPs that were made to play on cheap equipment or for radio broadcasts).