Modern Linestages

Its my opinion that its a Bad Idea to use synergies, for example using a dark preamp to go with a bright source. What you wind up with is additional distortions and you can't get it to sound like real music.

You also wind up flushing huge amounts of $$$ down the loo.

Thanks Ralph, I wish I could have expressed my thoughts as coherently as you just did.

08-25-11: Clio09

Its my opinion that its a Bad Idea to use synergies, for example using a dark preamp to go with a bright source. What you wind up with is additional distortions and you can't get it to sound like real music.

You also wind up flushing huge amounts of $$$ down the loo.

Thanks Ralph, I wish I could have expressed my thoughts as coherently as you just did.
Clio09 (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

IMO, the conclusion is TRUE only when there is a consensus what is correct, desireable ... another words, a BEST. What one perceive is dark could be open to another. What is neutral? No 2 components sound the same. This is the reason there are more than ONE manufacturer of any component and each claim they are the BEST / correct.

Knghifi, you should take a course in basic microeconomic theory. They are available at any community college. Pay particular attention to when the prof talks about market equilibrium. You might even want to ask a question about the phrase "in the long run". With your new found knowledge you'll understand why your Mazda comment is not particularly insightful.

Grannyring, I never said the source was perfect and your distinction between complement/correct would be very hard to define. After all, a 1.5dB boost at 275Hz with a half octave bandwidth coupled with a dynamically triggered 2nd harmonic overtone generator might both complement and correct and correct a cool sounding digitally sourced signal.

Onhwy61, Not unexpected. Didn't think you would understand. Thanks for the advice.

Atmasphere. I understand the point you are making and sure understand how hard it is to put together a well matched system.

I am however, not talking about taking a bright this + a dull that + plus a soft this and an agressive that to come up with a finished system. That is an endless circle of fustration and $$$ spent.

My point is simple; All gear editorializes and has its own particular flaw(s). No exceptions to this rule is the premise we need to agree on to go any further here. If one believes a source is perfect and just needs the signal to be feed into the speakers EXACTLY the same way it left the source , without any "improvement" for filedity to the voice or instrument, then yes you ONLY want gear that is true and unwavering in fidelity to the one thing that matters to you - the front end source. If you think that, then fine - have at it! I understand many an audiophile and Aphile editor/reviewer thinks this way. At least they write this way.

I don't. As I have said, the end result of the total system matters, not fidelity to the source component. The source component is not the object or goal of fidelity, rather the goal is fidelity the natural, real sound of the voice and instrument. The source component is flawed and simply an electronic attempt to recreate the real thing - so I would not try to pledge all of my eforts to being true to it only!Heck, the CD or digital medium is also flawed - the dang CD itself (before the source component) is flawed.

So yes, putting together a system that recreates the reality of voice and instrument is hard work and often times done through trial and error. Dealers and fellow audiophiles with great experience can be a great help as they have tried many combinations. Some of us learn on our own and that is also great fun. I enjoy the process, not all do.

Actives and passives can be part of the final music making system result. I just accept all gear is flawed and system matching is critical to recreating the real thing. No source component is the real thing. The master tape is not the real thing. Every single step from the recording studio to our stereo systems is an effort to recreate the real thing. Every step is flawed in one way or another. Yes, it is the combination of a complete system that strives towards fidelity. To serve the source component as master assures you of one thing only - fidelity to the flawed ONE electronic component.

What's particularly fun is the fact that one need not spend $100,000 to arrive at fidelity to voice and instrument. More money is not the only means to this end. So the fun continues in our quest as audiophiles.