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
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,915 posts
 
Bill  great thread.

All who wander are not lost, just most of them. IF you don’t know where you are going any road will get you there.

Few of us can start with a clean sheet race car mentality or budget. The fully formed, audiophile music addict rarely pops out of the womb that way. So we are somewhat weighed down by our experience and possessions, and key emotional events tied to same.

Start with the goal in mind: My mentor describes it as “ very frequent goosebumps moments of holy cow, I am there in the acoustic space with the performers “

I think a key bit of discernment comes from the question ; what are my references ? Frankly i don’t think it is studio multi track.

i went down a path to etch in my mind and stored media references where i witnessed the unamplified event in reverberant space. In doing some research, that similar quest duplicated by more than a few audiophiles wanting more - see Ken Kreisel aka Real Time Records, Sheffield, Water Lilly, etc. Great examples that people like @bdp24 appreciate. The missing bit was being there…

So set off on my path to build some references where i was there, often fiddling w dials, etc. So my destination is clear, it does not include counting the coins in DSOM Money, chasing details “ i have never heard before “… well, maybe…but i was there. Of course, this model depends on microphone choice and a host of other variables…

So, in short…collect references, even if they are only in the mind.

Deciding on first principles is important.

Some people don’t hear time and phase. My curse is, I do. While i own speakers that are not accurate in those two key dimensions, they are not my reference tools. They do often spotlight limitations and sometimes shine a light on shortcomings in the reference. It also helps to run with a smart, inventive yet perpetually unsatisfied crowd… Why would Peter Walker, noted genius seek to emulate a point source within a planer ?

Got to run, more on first principles later, 31 flavors and cat chasing own tail..

Jim
patrickdowns's avatar
patrickdowns
513 posts
 
mikelavigne

Hi. I have bookmarked and PDF'd the article which details the build you did of your listening room in your barn and have re-read it many times. Amazing room and system -- to die for. I recall it's in the PNW where I am, and if you welcome visitors, count me in!

Your advice is excellent, so all I need now is more money and younger ears. Cheers.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,819 posts
 
My hi-fi journey commenced in the late-60’s, when almost all loudspeakers were pretty-severely colored (see below). Colored in the sense used by J.Gordon Holt---"vowel" colorations, especially noticeable on voices. If you don’t know what vc means, look in up in JGH’s book of hi-fi terminology.

At that time I had been exposed only to acoustic suspension sealed box speakers, the design that revolutionized loudspeakers when introduced in the late-50’s by Acoustic Research (in their AR-1). It wasn’t until I heard my fist ESL tweeter (the RTR used in the ESS TranStatic) that I experienced lack-of-coloration and transparency (the TranStatic also had transmissionline-loaded KEF midrange and bass drivers). In 1971 I then heard the Infinity Servo-Static 1 (ESL above 100Hz), and my expectations grew exponentially!

Next was the Magneplanar Tympani T-I in ’72 (demonstrated by Bill Johnson himself), which produced the first life-size vocal and instrumental scale (image size)---along with imaging (including image height) and depth---I had heard. I was also spoiled by the "openness" of dipole loudspeakers, which made box loudspeakers sound confined and constrained, producing images miniaturized and "squeezed out of" the enclosure.

Yet I unfortunately had still not heard the QUAD ESL. Incredibly, THAT loudspeaker---introduced in 1957---was an extremely coloration-free and transparent reproducer. If I had, I could have saved myself a lot of time and effort ;-) . Thankfully, the advances made in box loudspeaker design since the 1950’s-70’s have been remarkable, and there are now many low-coloration/high-transparency loudspeakers available. As the quality of vocal reproduction is my highest priority, I consider that a very big deal. And is why I still can’t stand horns---far too much vowel coloration for my liking. Even a little is unacceptable to me.

Everything else in a system---including the room---is in service to the loudspeaker.
baylinor's avatar
baylinor
1,424 posts
 
This is not going to be very helpful as far as synergy goes and the what the magic solution may be. But here is how I pick my equipment. I research each component very carefully through multiple reviews and pick the one that has the best reviews in the range that fits my budget. And it has worked wonders for me. You can see my components in my house of stereo system and you will see exactly what I mean. Did I get lucky or did all that research really pay off? Bottom line I have never bought anything based on auditioning components and don't feel like I miss much. 
baylinor's avatar
baylinor
1,424 posts
 
My brands:
VPI
Pro-ject
Puffin
Schiit
PS Audio
Prima Luna
Marantz
Parasound Halo
Rythmick
PBN audio
And these are the main components, not two of the same brand. Weird, right?
More to discover