2. tech-talk
  3. 169525-140

System building; a meditation

System building; a meditation

This is an offshoot of a posting I made in a different thread; that is, what is one’s approach to building a system out of various components that maximizes the sonic attributes of the combination of particular components?There’s been some push-back on “tweaks” but leave that to the side for now. How does one select what components to include in a system, putting to one side budgetary constraints? (the budget thing can be solved in several ways, including through used and through a deliberate strategy to acquire certain components over time that achieve a certain result- my point being, if it weren’t simply a constraint of capital, how does one choose?)

There seem to be a few rules that we abide by- the relationship of amp to speaker being fundamental. The choice of front end –from DIY digital to high end analog is also a choice, but I’ll be agnostic in this regard even though I came up through the LP and still regard it as the mainstream medium of choice, simply because of the wealth of material in older records.

How do people choose the combinations of equipment they employ? Is it happenstance, the gradual upgrading of each component to a high standard or some other benchmark for what the system is supposed to do that necessitates certain choices?

For what it is worth, I don’t endorse one single approach; I went from electrostat listening (including ribbon tweets and subs) to horns, sort of (Avantgardes plus subs) and SET as one choice, but have heard marvelous systems using larger, relatively inefficient dynamic set ups (Magico; Rockport, TG, etc.) combined with big solid state power that left a very positive impression.

How do you sort through the thicket? It isn’t just specs, and listening within your system to evaluate is an ideal, but I’m opening this up to system building in general—what approach do you take? I’m not sure there is a single formala, but thought it worth exploring since it seems to be an undercurrent in a lot of equipment changes without addressing the “why?” of it or how one makes these choices.

I know that we are mired in a subjective hobby, and almost every system is different, even if the components are the same in a different room, but thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion. If not, the lack of responses will prove me wrong. I don’t have a single answer to this FWIW.


128x128whart
tablejockey
3,916 posts
 
Insightful post, whart.

I've heard inexpensive and pricey speakers sound the most convincing because of THE ROOM/positioning.

No cable or tweak thingy is ever going to take place of the 2 most basic requirements for seeking "the truth".

pauly
1,012 posts
 
Your question is very broad and as you allude, I also don’t think there is a correct answer.

My system morphed into what it is today over a period of decades. I would never have dreamt I’d be where I am today when I started off. I also use SET amps now, but back then I thought SET owners were kinda "weird"; why pay more for a 3.5WPC with a very high THD when you get get a 200WPC with low THD for a lot less?

Needless to say I don’t think so anymore.

I do find it interesting that it does seem as though not a single person has a system that matches somebody else’s. In a sense our hobby is a very powerful expression of individualism.
fuzztone's avatar
fuzztone
5,629 posts
 
Size, features, bang for buck, efficiency, durability (low maintenance)
If it gets past them and sounds good it stays.
If not, buh bye.
whart's avatar
whart OP
3,047 posts
 
@pauly- yes very broad, impossibly so perhaps. But it is the process that I'm inquiring about- I think @mikelavigne and @holmz both described the steps they went through. The question originally arose in my mind when thinking about the nature of what we share on these fora; questions about particular gear, and sometimes synergies between them, but is there any method to the process?
For me, it was gradual changes and evolving both gear and my own expectations of what could be achieved, but that spanned decades.
 I guess there are no shortcuts.
Perhaps, apart from room acoustics, placement, good clean power, much is preference. 
Mike's observation about colorations is interesting since I achieved my personal best performance levels with the Lamm ML2 and Koetsu stone bodies-- certainly not cheap, but both would probably fail Mike's neutrality test (not complaining, or criticizing Mike; to the contrary, this just underscores how much may be based on preference). I certainly don't tout my system as "colored" or euphonic, but I want both the clarity I get from tubes in the mids and that fully fleshed out sound that the Koetsu seems to deliver, neutrality be damned! 
Thanks to each of you for your input.
mikelavigne
2,199 posts
 
Bill,

i think what we call ’coloration’ has a wide variance from person to person like you say. maybe it comes down to expectations for big music. when i had my Koetsu RSP for 10 years, or my Lamm ML3’s for 6 months, neither would be my answer for listening to big orchestral at warp 9 in my large room....which is essential for me. my Etsuro Gold cartridge or darTZeel mono blocks are better tools for that task for me and my system.

yet in a different room and speaker system the Koetsu and Lamm might be the perfect pieces and fulfill any big music expectations for that listener. and then there is our personal sonic compass and comfort zone.

so many contexts and different targets.

i will say again.........the key is having your own reference sound, then going after it. if you get it then enjoy it.
More to discover