Ron’s New System

[Kingrex]

1) singular improvement

2) improvement on a net basis

3) Pareto improvement

What does this mean? The 3 things?

Have you been saying your at a good place and don't feel a need to alter anything. Unless you can get one or all of these 3?

 

[XV-1]

Having a system impedes learning. Too much focus on very few components. Sure if they were free one could do unlimited learning. Even big spenders here stick to only a few components. Mike has had the same speaker for 20 years, and same amp, experimented more with analog. Same with many high spenders. Low or medium spenders, forget it, afrer 30 years you will experience 1%. Tang had 4 TTs, two amps, one speaker in so many years

Gets worse when owners of very few components spend time defending their lack of learning and justifying bills

Ked

What does one need to learn if they are happy with their system ?

Use your logic relationships with the opposite sex and partners- divorces will be sky high as one is always learning and trading in on something new

 

[Audiocrack]

It is interesting to me that we seem to have different views on this.

I may be right, or I may be wrong (I never have a problem with discovering or learning that I am wrong) but here is what is behind my thinking: I associate ancillary components and tweaks with furthering or implementing the audiophile sonic objectives of maximizing detail, maximizing resolution, minimizing noise floor, maximizing black background, maximizing delineation of sonic images, maximizing frequency extension and maximizing neutrality. I don't consider these objectives to be consistent with what I personally value in sound reproduction.

If one of these ancillary components or tweaks made Stevie Nicks sound more real or alive in my room, then I would be happy to change my mind and keep that ancillary component. Of course I agree that there are lots of ways to change the sound of one's system, but I care only about a change that increases on a net basis, and, preferably, on a Pareto Improvement basis, my emotional engagement.

From my admittedly limited experience in my own system and in friends' systems with ancillary components and tweaks I have not heard ancillary components and tweaks to increase on a net basis organic-ness or naturalness of the sound or to increase my suspension of disbelief.* I have heard them increase sonic contrast, achieve blacker backgrounds, increase the delineation of sonic images, and alter frequency balance. But none of these results are things I personally care about for my own system.

Todd, I wonder if we just have different high-end audio objectives? Possibly your objective is: 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," while my objectives are: 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event," and 4) "create a sound that seems live."

*One of my two or three favorite systems of all time uses a Scherzinger, but the owner did not take it in and out of the system for an A/B comparison. Separately, I did not like what an Equi-Tech or a PS Audio P10 did to the sound of a certain system.

Ron, in your second paragraph all kind of effects or goals are mentioned of - what you call - “ancillary components and tweaks”. However, I am missing in your description what I consider to be the most important goal of what I am trying to trying to achieve with all my grounding, mechanical isolation and mass loading efforts (as described in the Tidal La Assoluta system thread on WBF): getting rid off as much distorsion as possible. Your description seems to imply that removing noise / pollution / distorsion or whatever you call it is not key in order to come as close as possible to the original music. I am not sure if that is indeed what you are implying. If your view is indeed that distorsions are acceptable or might even be appreciated as long as they are pleasing to the ears, we (strongly) disagree.

 

[PYP]

Like many others, I enjoyed the journey to a stable system. It took a lot of time to get there because learning is about making errors and the technology changed too (a moving target).

A stable system allows me to shift my focus to learning about music and that is endless and endlessly enjoyable.

Although I possess some engineering DNA, my DIY days are long over. For those with more active engineering genes, I can understand how enjoyable that is. To be able to build one's own equipment must be the highest expression of one's skill. More power to you. But that path isn't for everyone.

Obsessing over gear is part of this hobby, but it gets old (as do we). When the gear became the goal and not the means, I wasn't happy. However, it is fun to read about those who continue to push on with the experiment. I learn from those experiments even if I don't want to replicate them.

 

[pjwd]

Ked

What does one need to learn if they are happy with their system ?

Use your logic relationships with the opposite sex and partners- divorces will be sky high as one is always learning and trading in on something new

Ahhh but you never commit!

 

[morricab]

Having a system impedes learning. Too much focus on very few components. Sure if they were free one could do unlimited learning. Even big spenders here stick to only a few components. Mike has had the same speaker for 20 years, and same amp, experimented more with analog. Same with many high spenders. Low or medium spenders, forget it, afrer 30 years you will experience 1%. Tang had 4 TTs, two amps, one speaker in so many years

Gets worse when owners of very few components spend time defending their lack of learning and justifying bills

What you say is true...if your goal is to learn as much as possible about gear and gear interaction. It is not fundamentally or inherently true if the goal is to reach a personal satisfaction in the sound you get when listening to music. You are a vicarious gear slut that uses other people's system to get a 2nd hand gear rush. I admit that it is a lot more clever than spending your own money prolifically on lots of gear. But I don't think you will learn what you think you are learning...at least to achieve musical satisfaction. Some people become reviewers just in order to get their hands on as much gear (even if only for a short time) as possible. You should become an official reviewer and then you can get hands on with the gear of your choice.

I knew a guy here in Switzerland who literally had all new systems from one week to the next. He even spent something like 80K in one go on a medium level AN UK system...only to get rid of the whole thing in less than 2 months. He probably had more gear experience than anyone I ever met as literally hundreds of speakers, amps, dacs, turntables etc. etc. etc. passed through his hands in years I knew him. He also had less clue about what made good sound than most other experienced audiophiles. A couple of times he had an extremely good sounding system (even a broken clock tells the time right twice a day) and I asked him why he doesn't stop now. He responded that there was too much interesting gear out there to try to just settle down with a system. Clearly his goal was different than many in this hobby...but the same as a lot of box swappers that are in denial.

There is nothing wrong with people "settling" on a local maximum that is contained within their experience...no one has a totality of experience from which to optimize to find the global maximum of ultimate system. Not even your jet setting self has that level of experience and you never will. Plus, it is only your own definition of what that maximum even would be...many don't agree with it or other people's ideas of a maximum (there are a fair number here who view Wilson/D'Agostino/Pilium or Nagra as the ultimate...which I know you don't agree with). Do you have more experience than most audiophiles with different gear and sounds? Kind of...a hit and run survey is not completely substitutable for in depth experience with a system.

 

[Al M.]

What you say is true...if your goal is to learn as much as possible about gear and gear interaction. It is not fundamentally or inherently true if the goal is to reach a personal satisfaction in the sound you get when listening to music. You are a vicarious gear slut that uses other people's system to get a 2nd hand gear rush. I admit that it is a lot more clever than spending your own money prolifically on lots of gear. But I don't think you will learn what you think you are learning...at least to achieve musical satisfaction. Some people become reviewers just in order to get their hands on as much gear (even if only for a short time) as possible. You should become an official reviewer and then you can get hands on with the gear of your choice.

I knew a guy here in Switzerland who literally had all new systems from one week to the next. He even spent something like 80K in one go on a medium level AN UK system...only to get rid of the whole thing in less than 2 months. He probably had more gear experience than anyone I ever met as literally hundreds of speakers, amps, dacs, turntables etc. etc. etc. passed through his hands in years I knew him. He also had less clue about what made good sound than most other experienced audiophiles. A couple of times he had an extremely good sounding system (even a broken clock tells the time right twice a day) and I asked him why he doesn't stop now. He responded that there was too much interesting gear out there to try to just settle down with a system. Clearly his goal was different than many in this hobby...but the same as a lot of box swappers that are in denial.

There is nothing wrong with people "settling" on a local maximum that is contained within their experience...no one has a totality of experience from which to optimize to find the global maximum of ultimate system. Not even your jet setting self has that level of experience and you never will. Plus, it is only your own definition of what that maximum even would be...many don't agree with it or other people's ideas of a maximum (there are a fair number here who view Wilson/D'Agostino/Pilium or Nagra as the ultimate...which I know you don't agree with). Do you have more experience than most audiophiles with different gear and sounds? Kind of...a hit and run survey is not completely substitutable for in depth experience with a system.

Great post, Brad.

Do you have more experience than most audiophiles with different gear and sounds? Kind of...a hit and run survey is not completely substitutable for in depth experience with a system.

This is related to what I was trying to get at with my own post yesterday.

"Hit and run survey" -- perfect choice of words.

 

[bonzo75]

I knew a guy here in Switzerland who literally had all new systems from one week to the next. He even spent something like 80K in one go on a medium level AN UK system...only to get rid of the whole thing in less than 2 months. He probably had more gear experience than anyone I ever met as literally hundreds of speakers, amps, dacs, turntables etc. etc. etc. passed through his hands in years I knew him. He also had less clue about what made good sound than most other experienced audiophiles. A couple of times he had an extremely good sounding system (even a broken clock tells the time right twice a day) and I asked him why he doesn't stop now. He responded that there was too much interesting gear out there to try to just settle down with a system. Clearly his goal was different than many in this hobby...but the same as a lot of box swappers that are in denial.

The fact that you think this is an analogy shows lack of experience. You are confusing his set up skills vs listening or learning.

I am visiting guys who have systems well set up. The fact that he changed from one week to next, or even 3 months to next, means he won't learn anything. This is not the same as if he had visited the same amount of systems settled in very good state. He would have learned much more in one day. Listening is not difficult, if you have the right music and recordings, and the system is stable. The guy you know is exactly my point...even with tons of money, and 50+years, you will never be able to get enough stable systems on your own. Thanks for confirming what I said.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Bonzo next topic ? how to raise kids …!

 

[PYP]

What you say is true...if your goal is to learn as much as possible about gear and gear interaction. It is not fundamentally or inherently true if the goal is to reach a personal satisfaction in the sound you get when listening to music. You are a vicarious gear slut that uses other people's system to get a 2nd hand gear rush.

I don't know @bonzo75 and am hesitant about any ad hominem posts, but I have always thought of him as a gear virgin. He shows remarkable restraint in today's audiophile world! I kinda admire that even as I see some downsides.

And what is wrong with a little vicarious thrill? I do that every day with this website.

In general, I certainly don't disagree that one learns a lot by working through one's theories and developing audiophile intuition through the day-to-day hands-on struggle.

Also agree that hearing other setups provides useful information.

 

[sbnx]

It is interesting to me that we seem to have different views on this.

I may be right, or I may be wrong (I never have a problem with discovering or learning that I am wrong) but here is what is behind my thinking: I associate ancillary components and tweaks with furthering or implementing the audiophile sonic objectives of maximizing detail, maximizing resolution, minimizing noise floor, maximizing black background, maximizing delineation of sonic images, maximizing frequency extension and maximizing neutrality. I don't consider these objectives to be consistent with what I personally value in sound reproduction.

If one of these ancillary components or tweaks made Stevie Nicks sound more real or alive in my room, then I would be happy to change my mind and keep that ancillary component. Of course I agree that there are lots of ways to change the sound of one's system, but I care only about a change that increases on a net basis, and, preferably, on a Pareto Improvement basis, my emotional engagement.

From my admittedly limited experience in my own system and in friends' systems with ancillary components and tweaks I have not heard ancillary components and tweaks to increase on a net basis organic-ness or naturalness of the sound or to increase my suspension of disbelief.* I have heard them increase sonic contrast, achieve blacker backgrounds, increase the delineation of sonic images, and alter frequency balance. But none of these results are things I personally care about for my own system.

Todd, I wonder if we just have different high-end audio objectives? Possibly your objective is: 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," while my objectives are: 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event," and 4) "create a sound that seems live."

*One of my two or three favorite systems of all time uses a Scherzinger, but the owner did not take it in and out of the system for an A/B comparison. Separately, I did not like what an Equi-Tech or a PS Audio P10 did to the sound of a certain system.

Hmmm. Maybe we do have different objectives. If we are headed to the same destination, then we certainly have a different approach to how we think we should get there.

You are trying to create convincing vocals. Vocal tracks are relatively simple: not much in the way of frequency extremes, not very many images in the soundfield, images are relatively large (so not much delineation is needed). Are you sure you want "real"? To clarify this, consider a movie example. In the distant past, Vaseline was smeared on the camera lens to soften the image, such as Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca. It gives a glow and dreamy quality to the image. If it was filmed and viewed in 8K we would see every blemish and nuance of Ingrid Bergman's skin. Live music is real. There is no "Vaseline effect" in live music. Do you want Stevie Nicks or do you want a romanticized version of Stevie Nicks? When I read what you describe, see your equipment choices and how you implement them, I believe it is the latter.

Whether real or romanticized is up to the owner of the system. I am not judging or throwing any rocks.

 

[microstrip]

IMO the debate is focusing excessively on learning just by listening or swapping gear. Although this is essentially a subjective hobby - hobby, not a task - there is a lot we can correlate with scientific data and psychoacoustics. Surely there is a lot more we can't really fully understand in the high-end, but reference texts and books on stereo and perception, refereed by thousands, are still of great value.

Our best and sometimes only source of knowledge about high-end specifics could be manufacturers - unfortunately they have to protect themselves due to marketing and secrecy reasons. The hobby is so diverse that no listening and swapping will allow us to have general rules to enjoyment and happiness.

IMO ranking is the worst enemy of learning in this hobby - although sometimes fencing due to different opinions can result in challenging discussions seldom we learn from it.

Another enemy are surely circular debates due to fidelity to myths or dogmas. Unless we accept to break the circle with clear evidence and an open mind there is little to learn.

And again, perspectives of those who consider music recording stopped thirty years ago can be very different from those who focus on contemporary recordings. All IMO, YMMV.

 

[morricab]

The fact that you think this is an analogy shows lack of experience. You are confusing his set up skills vs listening or learning.

I am visiting guys who have systems well set up. The fact that he changed from one week to next, or even 3 months to next, means he won't learn anything. This is not the same as if he had visited the same amount of systems settled in very good state. He would have learned much more in one day. Listening is not difficult, if you have the right music and recordings, and the system is stable. The guy you know is exactly my point...even with tons of money, and 50+years, you will never be able to get enough stable systems on your own. Thanks for confirming what I said.

Speculation on your part on many different levels. You speculate that the guy I knew doesn't know how to setup a system and didn't learn anything. You never heard his systems or know his knowledge base. You also speculate that the systems you heard were well setup. Maybe yes, maybe no.

You are quite free to criticize some of those you have visited, which would imply (in your view) a poor setup and/or gear choice. This debunks the speculation that the systems you visit are all well setup. You also speculate that you have learned the secrets of their setup success...until you build a system no one will know what you have learned or haven't learned.

Just because you read a text book on quantum mechanics doesn't mean that you understand quantum mechanics without some kind of test of your knowledge base. Just observing other people's work is not a substitution for experience gained by doing.

 

[morricab]

I don't know @bonzo75 and am hesitant about any ad hominem posts, but I have always thought of him as a gear virgin. He shows remarkable restraint in today's audiophile world! I kinda admire that even as I see some downsides.

And what is wrong with a little vicarious thrill? I do that every day with this website.

In general, I certainly don't disagree that one learns a lot by working through one's theories and developing audiophile intuition through the day-to-day hands-on struggle.

Also agree that hearing other setups provides useful information.

I think you missed this sentence that come directly after: " I admit that it is a lot more clever than spending your own money prolifically on lots of gear. "

FWIW, I never said it was a problem in and of itself...it is a problem with how it is being used to claim superior knowledge over those who own and modify systems at a high level.

 

[bonzo75]

Speculation on your part on many different levels. You speculate that the guy I knew doesn't know how to setup a system and didn't learn anything

No one can if he is on weekly basis. You really need to take a long time to optimize something. And that's why you learn more when you visit people who have optimized something.

 

[bonzo75]

I think you missed this sentence that come directly after: " I admit that it is a lot more clever than spending your own money prolifically on lots of gear. "

Actually, I spend on gear and I spend on records. Maybe you missed that. I have actually shipped phonos, cartridges, and amps I have bought around for compares. Obviously I cannot afford all the gear I visit to see, and even the most spendy guys cannot. But that is the point.

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo next topic ? how to raise kids …!

how to manage them is the same way as managing old audiophiles

 

[Atmasphere]

I'm sorry Ralph, but I do not understand this post. I am not seeing a contradiction.

1) singular improvement

2) improvement on a net basis

3) Pareto improvement

Where is the contradiction?

You said:

I don't look for an improvement (like many audiophiles do). I look for an improvement on a net basis.

An improvement is just that- an improvement. So you are saying you don't look for an improvement, you look for an improvement. I was just pointing out that bit could have been a bit less - something? For one as literal as I tend, the contradictory aspect stands out (Pareto or not).

 

[sbnx]

And that's why you learn more when you visit people who have optimized something.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? How are you learning? If someone has "optimized" something, are you listening with and without the "optimization"? You are listening to a complete system, so how else could you discern the "optimized" effect of something?

 

[Alrainbow]

In the past two years I’ve given up on knowing what I like and being satisfied
that’s a biased opinion at best.
It’s a given no one’s setup is real it’s a master of reality totally flawed.
learning what is correct is very difficult for anyone.
you need a method and follow it to re learn audio memories correctly.
shows are just that a show an event to see as much as hear.
a well done home system is better but even there it’s one persons observations created to there wants.
are panels better then box speakers or stats
to me well done headphones are a needed tool. to hear live events is part but even there large variety of venue and speakers used or not create possible flaws.
the genre one likes also contributes to a given system and its setup.
You can make comments are any given theory to get there.
this I think is much better for discussions
But we don’t we seem to focus on anything but how to get there In a method