2. misc-audio
  3. 1195135291

Philosophy used in assembling your system?

When putting together your system were there any underlying desgin philosophies used? Some examples would be:

- Most expensive component you can afford in every category (Cost no object).
- Best Value in every category.
- Cost ratios between components (ex. Speakers = 40%, Cables = 15%, and source components = 45%).
- Components types, i.e. Tubes vs. Solid State, totally digital or all analog.
- Listening preferences.
- The ascetics of a particular component.
- Best deals you happen to find.
- Physical dimensions and sound characteristics of your target listening room.
- Spouse's budget
- None of the above

Any input is greatly appreciated!

Jeff
jeffhunter
rja's avatar
rja
2,356 posts
 
My philosophy has been one of:"The blind leading the blind".
ngjockey
1,042 posts
 
My philosophy:

1) Know what I'm willing to compromise.
2) Know what I'm not willing to compromise.
3) Research
4) Experiment

Aball, the real trick is getting a room to fit the speakers, not vice versa :)
sogood51
2,157 posts
 
No philosophy, my systems morph over time...just like me. I think of audio systems in much the same way, as I think of music...it's all good at some time or another.

I guess if I were setting up an audio system for someone else (from scratch)...I would want to know about that persons listening habits, I would want to look at, and discuss the room, and any setup issues I think we may run into.

Components...I would start with speaker choices (hundreds of choices here...depending?). So, I guess I'll 3rd the “Aball Method” for setting up a system from scratch.

Dave
swampwalker's avatar
swampwalker
5,138 posts
 
Never thought much about $ ratios, since its been a step-wise process. I read/researched a lot. Looked for components that were "over-acheivers" in price:performance and that were not terribly finicky in terms of either set-up or accompanying equipment. Emphasis on accurate tonal rendition and emotional impact. And jumping on a great deal when I see one, even if it means re-thinking another piece.
deecee's avatar
deecee
97 posts
 
All of the above!

I guess I lean toward bang per buck, highly modular, "good deal" systems.

Although tastes change over the years, I like to get components that have natural growth potential and flexibility so that when there might be either a "quantum leap" (or some advance in a component), the other components will have enough flexibility to not be *totally* outclassed by the new gear (until the next component is upgraded).
More to discover