if I were a Lotto winner, I'd be much more willing and able to spend crazy money to get a system that, in my listening room, would reliably transport my hearing mechanism to the venue in which the recording took place, meaning that there would be no "sweet spot" because the imaging would be actual and not a grand [but conditional] illusion, where the sound would sweetly and totally be free of any artifice, lacking any electronic noise/distortion, with the exact same frequency balance as the original performance and venue. as it is, I am a stickler for stereophonic imaging AND decently accurate frequency balance. the only speaker systems I'd ever heard that had a room-sized sweet spot and reasonably accurate frequency balance, were the Maggie tympani III and the Bose Cinemate SR-1, the former very VERY expensive [including the premium ancillary electronics and acoustic room treatment it required] and the latter somewhat more affordable. the Maggie sound system did its magic via brute force engineering, the Bose system did its magic via the magic of DSP. to my ears, the Maggie system sounded "sweeter" and purer, with much visceral impact, as befits its king's ransom price. that would be the system I'd get if I was rich.
HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH TO SPEND ON A SYSTEM? IF YOU GET THE SOUND DOES IT MATTER?
How much is too much. Does it matter as long as you get the sound that you seek. I thought I would never have an expensive system as I do now. When I started I would have never thought to put this much into audio. But I have and I’m happy with my sound. Thoughts?
- ...
- 44 posts total
- 44 posts total