@daveyf wrote:
@mikelavigne You are a highly experienced a’phile, why would someone believe that they could improve your system, without a) first listening to it and then b) believe that their knowledge would trump yours??...I don’t really understand this attitude from several members who have posted upstream. To these very same members, i would ask this question: Is it possible that in fact someone like Mike L could have a superior sounding system to yours...and not only that, have more experience/knowledge than you?
Speaking for myself and my replies to @mikelavigne I anticipated an above-like response, and it’s not without merit. Maybe I even hoped such a reply would be leveled at me/us so that I could better explain at least myself and not come across as an arrogant know-it-better, but rather that my intention was to challenge a single aspect of which I find myself to have some experience here that Mike, it appears, does not - at least not extensively with his 2-channel setup.
Yes, I would expect most everyone to find Mike’s system to be superior sounding to my own setup, and yes it wouldn’t surprise me if Mike - in a range a areas - has somewhat more knowledge and experience than I. Hopefully I made it clear that I can only assume it’s a truly great sounding system of his, and that the implementation in every regard, from all that I can assess, has been thoroughly considered and executed. The effort and time put into it all is certainly awe inspiring.
That being said it’s also problematic to blindly expect an individual with a highly sophisticated and expensive system like Mike’s is above criticism or suggestive acts of any kind. Having not listened to his setup implies both the fact that I can’t judge its sonic merits, just as well that I cannot take it for granted it’s a sound that - despite the money, time, research, effort and dedication that went into this - would blow me away in every single aspect. I’ve heard my share of über-expensive setups in homes that left me quite unimpressed; systems that sounded disjointed, uneven, stale, bloated, over-damped (more than under-damped, actually), overly detail focused, malnourished, etc. Very few of them sounded really natural to my ears, and it just goes to show that every setup, regardless of price, is a potential only, but also that personal preference varies. Preference I can deal with, but a badly implemented system is just a waste.
Nothing to me implies that Mike’s system is badly implemented, on the contrary. I merely suggested an approach, of which he apparently has no experience to speak of (and who among us has experience in every facet of audio reproduction approaches?), that could potentially lift the sonics to even higher levels of quality. From my chair it would be worth pursuing if this particular area (i.e.: outboard active configuration) is a stone unturned - not least with the ambition at play here.