My upstream is surgical.
Downstream: musical.
Yeah, its a Haiku
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.
@dcevans Mike— where might I find the article you wrote that Patrick referenced? i wrote this article in 2004. honestly building the room was simple compared to how much i had to learn and grow, with lots of mistakes along the way, to finally get the room right in 2015. https://positive-feedback.com/Issue16/lavigneroom.htm this is the current room now. https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/615 |
I have been in 4 homes that have had acoustic (popcorn) ceilings. They are pretty good for acoustics in the mid to high frequencies. One recent home (built in 1957) had an acoustic ceiling that looked exactly the same as the others but the acoustic material was concrete. Zero asbestos...not needed because it was inherently fire resistant. Amazing bass response and clarity in the entire spectrum. Best room by far. Night and day difference. This type of acoustic ceiling is extinct now. Too bad because it rocks (pun intended). I had it tested and the guy in the lab said " I can already tell you this sample will have no asbestos". You cannot remove this type of ceiling without damaging the sheet rock...it's part of the structure...and that's the key: mass. Anyway, I believe the room is like a fingerprint. Even if you build a dedicated listening room, you are simply building a better fingerprint. Symmetry helps but nothing neutral about it. But, yes it would be nice to have a dedicated listening room again. |
@sandthemall Anyway, I believe the room is like a fingerprint. Even if you build a dedicated listening room, you are simply building a better fingerprint. Symmetry helps but nothing neutral about it. But, yes it would be nice to have a dedicated listening room again. i disagree. actually the idea is that when you get your room synergy and signal path maturity to a certain place the room, speakers and signal path disappear. which is attainable, not to be confused with actually sounding like real life, which is not attainable. of course there are many degrees of speakers and rooms disappearing. it’s like peeling an onion, with dozens of layers to work through, getting all the way there. and not every recording plays to the disappearing act equally. what’s interesting is that the closer you get to it, the more you hear where the problems are. removing the most egregious restrictions to synergy is the hardest, after that, and you ’get it’ about where you are going it just flows as the little things stick out like sore thumbs. |