Are there other people like me ? Amazed by their low cost system :)


Are there other people so much amazed by a relatively low cost system , they consider that is not a stopgap but instead a minimally satisfying ectasy... Each day i am amazed by my speakers and headphone... Am i deaf? Am i ignorant of high end ? Be assured that i know better system with higher acoustic experience and more refined exist ...

My point is an experienced and felt minimal threshold of acoustic qualities and well done and well realized and well manifested acoustic factors exist for me and are at play, for the price invested; so much so , i consider any upgrade way less tempting and if possible would be more, way more , costlier to appear as a real upgrade in quality... For sure an upgrade of part at low cost unbeknowst to me is possible but i must live with what i have for now but i feel no frustration at all. 😊

Am i the only one deluded in this way or enlightened in this way ? Pick your choice of word.... 😎

128x128mahgister

--First i never claimed that my room was an ideal acoustic model...( it was more an unesthetical laboratory for trials and experiments) At the end i was satisfied.. Thats all ...I learned by experiments in my room . Period. Who can put 100 tuned resonators in a living room anyway ?But my goal was to learn here not to propose an ideal room for all .😁

 

-- Second I called minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold a minimum threshold with enough balance between all factors implicated to be able to make possible a minimal satisfaction level relative to the gear designs used ...Higher end products cannot be replaced in performance by low cost one by the way . Only an idiot will suggest in ad hominem attack against me that i proposed my system as the TOP system there is instead of understanding my point about method... i never claimed something like that ...A living room cannot be a laboratory for experiments anyway...

 

--Third here we have someone using ad hominem attack against my claim that audiophile experience is possible at all costs if we learn how to embed the system in the room /house for specific ears...😊

 

-- Four This person attacking me not my argument conflate minimal acoustic satisfaction with maximal one when we use high end TOP products in acoustically designed room. I myself always distinguish the two...😊

 

-- Six I always used simple blind test in my acoustics experiments and devices experiments. I had nothing to prove PUBLICLY to anyone. I dont sell gear. I advise electrical, mechanical and acoustical embeddings methods of controls BEFORE upgrading to high cost products. The idea is to spare money and at least trying to understand some doable acoustic experiences BEFORE upgrading ...Then because i sold nothing and claim nothing about my gear/room , save my own satisfaction, i dont need to prove to some haters in a public double blind test that my product is good. I dont sell product. My method of adressing the way the gear work in these three dimensions is good. No need to blind test a method. We must use it FIRST because it work for any gear type at any cost.

 

I dont like spammers and i dont like ad hominem attacks by revengeful people Generally they are narrow mind to stay polite...😊

It seems the amount of disturbing posts here cannot be explained only by my too long posts counts or my "verbosity" as a non english speaking people as audphile rightfully point out... 😁

It seems my question hit a sensible pack of nerves on people not enough wise to understand or accept that any gear system at any price must be righfully embedded in his working dimensions to be optimal.

Then when the synergy is there, any system can give at any price at least a minimal acoustical satisfying experience...

It seems some narrow minds dont like my audio journey observations...They throw off too much money on gear perhaps and made not enough experiments and they hate if someone remind them of this simple necessity before buying or selling anything ..

😊

 

«Hate is explained by a lack of brain cells»--Anonymus neurophysiologist😎

«Sarcasm without real object is not hate but often stupidity»-- Anonymus audiogon poster

 

There is a price to pay if we neglect to study and experiment with acoustics... ( not to mention mechanical and electrical embeddings controls)

Yes, so we will maintain Mahgister’s acoustically tweaked out splendid room as the baseline.

____BASELINE - MAHGISTER’S ACOUSTICALLY ENHANCED ROOM ____

Now, there is an experiment that can be conducted to test Mahgister’s amazement with his low cost system.

It will be conducted as follows:

- Maghister sits with a blindfold in his room so he can’t tell what speakers/electronics were brought into his room and what they cost.

- We will do a couple of swaps on Mahgister’s favorite tracks between his amazing low cost gear and the other test pieces that are brought in.

If Maghister picks his low cost gear as the truly amazing satisfying system over and over (as he sits blindfolded), then, that’s all there is to it.

But, if Maghister picks other gear that someone else brought in for the test (after he heard it in his room), Maghister could get exposed in front of all the audio nerds. Only Trudeau could possibly console the great Mahgister and control the ensuing prose, thereafter. 🤣

 

 

 

 

-- Second I called minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold a minimum threshold with enough balance between all factors implicated to be able to make possible a minimal satisfaction level relative to the gear designs used

Yeah, whatever, your so called "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" is a moving threshold/target. It is not static depending on how many points of reference and exposure to higher performance gear, one may accrue over the years. Once you’ve lived with/tasted the latter, satisfaction with the junk one may have started with in their journey begins to dissipate.

I dont like spammers and i dont like ad hominem attacks by revengeful people

You are indeed a highly "imaginative" (to put it nicely) fella. Bye now.

-- Second I called minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold a minimum threshold with enough balance between all factors implicated to be able to make possible a minimal satisfaction level relative to the gear designs used

Yeah, whatever, your so called "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" is a moving threshold/target. It is not static depending on how many points of reference and exposure to higher performance gear, one may accrue over the years. Once you’ve lived with/tasted the latter, satisfaction with the junk one may have started with in their journey begins to dissipate.

 

 

You are so ignorant that it would be comical if it was not sad...😁

Let me explain for the benefit of all others here...

You wrote that my minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold is a "moving target" because what define audiophile experience for you is mainly and only "exposure to higher performances gears"...

You dont realize that you yourself linked your target to imperative upgrading in a race toward a costly alleged perfection as in high end publicity...Then you are yourself moving the target linking it to a chain of improving purchases... 😁

Me i use acoustics to define my stable targets , you you use high end gear price tags publicity for your moveable goal about gear perfection ...

You are so market conditioned that you did not know that all acoustic factors implied in any musical reproduction are defined first and last by acoustics concepts and the balance we can achieve( a relative balance for sure, but a balance) with all these acoustics parameters with a system room ... Not only and mainly by buying gear more and more pricier...

You dont know that because you confuse and conflate the word acoustics in the plural with the expression room acoustic in the singular mode as an adjective...

You ignore we can achieve a relative but real balance between the 5 parameters defining "timbre" for example with any system at any price for a relatively satisfying experience which will be minimal or maximal or in between ...

For sure all these systems we can buy will perform , under equal or slightly over the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold... because to reach the maximal threshold we will need a completely dedicated room but it will not be enough we will need the best design existing then at high price...Mikelavigne system is in the maximal acoustical experience threshold window... Not because he bought the  costlier gear there is to buy, but because he designed a dedicated acoustic room for them and learn how to embed his system in the three working dimensions.

What you do not understand is that the concept of balance between the many acoustics concepts and parameters implied and with which we could play and improve will stay the same notions at work NEVERMIND THE PRICE OR THE DESIGN...

Do you catch what i spoke about ?

Take less times reading reviews of high end gear , less times attacking audiophile ad hominem just because you dont like that they pretend to be happy with their present low cost gear system because it is well installed....

And read more articles and papers on acoustical embeddings controls ( timbre and Immersinenes, listener envelopment and sound source dimensions ratio , spatial qualities and crosstalk etc ) more papers about the mechanical controls of vibrations and resonance, more papers about the electrical noise floor of the house-room-gear...

If you do that you will learn how to do more with less... And for sure, do i need to state that my low cost system will not beat the potential of your high end costlier own system especially if you had learn how to embed it well in his 3 working dimensions... ...

 

 

As you see now to explain that my words count must be minimally longer than the usual average poster ... 😊

 

As you said so amically , Bye now...