A thread to discuss things related to what and how we hear. System Building too!

[microstrip]

Who's Schumacher?

Answering your question:
I want a system capable of:

1. Fooling me often and long enough that I am listening to something real.
2. Get the message whatever it was warts et al...
3. Full range and with a wide-dynamic range: Capable of realistic and distortion-free SPL.
4. Fuss-free, Tube rolling is not for me. I like to set and forget for along while. No constant tinkering that deter from the music
5. I have become thrifty as I age and no longer want to spend an arm and a leg. I am very much on the lookout for over the top performance at sane (subjective here ) prices.
6. The dream speaker-based would have the reproduction characteristics of the Hifiman HE6 midband and bass, the midrange and highs of the Stax SR-009... I want real bass shaking the floor and my guts with all that and would like the entire system to cost less than $100K room treatment, HVAC and power included (Those may involve a good amount of DIY) . Interested for example to ditch all audiophile pretenses and spring for something like the JBL M2 system... Will I go for it? The JBL 4367 or something like the geddes NS15 could be it. Not sure yet... but you get my leanings.

Maybe it would be interesting if not important to explain the reason of this thread:
I have learned more from Audiophile fora in the 12 odd years I have been frequenting them than in my previous >30 years of being an audiophile. I have changed my views on many things among them cables, tubes and CD music, I have enjoyed music more in the process. The collective knowledge is IMO always superior to any individual's. Different and dissenting views challenges our beliefs and results if the mind is open, in better systems. I am of the opinion that real, honest and fierce discussions teach us more and lead to much better reproduction in one's settings than congrats. This is what I would like to get from this thread. To learn and synthesize.

Frantz,

Your list is so general that it will fit almost of us, except for the tube rolling, and then ... IMHO you should state your musical preferences. Compromises are always made when assembling a system and we usually optimize the system for our main listening.

Also you are mainly considering specific speakers that the collective entity of this forum has little experience. I doubt that you will get real, honest and fierce discussions as soon as you have a parti pris, no listening experience on them and most people do not have real significant experience on them. Perhaps we should start remembering that horns and waveguides are different thinks.

Can this discussion admit that amplifiers and sources sound a lot different and that subjective synergy is an important factor or are you just interested in debating speakers and acoustics? Because it seems me your main interest is just to debate the consequences of " ditching all audiophile pretenses", something I have recently tried with a Devialet.

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

Your list is so general that it will fit almost of us, except for the tube rolling, and then ... IMHO you should state your musical preferences. Compromises are always made when assembling a system and we usually optimize the system for our main listening.

Also you are mainly considering specific speakers that the collective entity of this forum has little experience. I doubt that you will get real, honest and fierce discussions as soon as you have a parti pris, no listening experience on them and most people do not have real significant experience on them. Perhaps we should start remembering that horns and waveguides are different thinks.

Can this discussion admit that amplifiers and sources sound a lot different and that subjective synergy is an important factor or are you just interested in debating speakers and acoustics? Because it seems me your main interest is just to debate the consequences of " ditching all audiophile pretenses", something I have recently tried with a Devialet.

microstrip

Your penchant to take the counterpoint of whatever I say is getting the best of you ..
Please don't speak as if you were the collective's voice. You are not. An example: there are people here within the collective that do have experiences with the speakers I mentioned. Actually there is a fellow here that knows almost anything that there is to know about JBL, (Rob I am speaking to you here ). DallasJustice and Joelinid to name those 2, have the 4367. Amir has the M2 if I am not mistaken or at any rate has vast experience with it. While those speakers may not have within WBF, the popularity of Wilson or Magico they are well known, so your point of

most people do not have real significant experience on them

is moot. That is what I call the knowledge of the collective.
I have no parti-pris .. I am getting more and ore interested in horns and nonobstant your view that horns and waveguide are two different things there is no consensus on their definitions since a horn is a waveguide too . So let's not get too fine here.. You get my point that those are two faces of the same coin.

Let's agree to disagree on the synergy thing. It is a tenet of your system building approach and not of mine. While your experience and knowledge of things audio is vast mine is not minuscule. I have been at this thing for several years. Not a pissing contest but I am sure you get my point. And what would be wrong with taking a different approach? Many people here have taken the road less travelled some mixing Pro and audiophile gear and for many of those who have heard it , ddk system based on a movie theater speaker with LAMM electronics is one of the best they'
ve heard. Same LAMM which seems to work well for speakers as diverse as Steve Williams Wilsons or Jack D201 VOn Swheikert VR 9 and VR11. Many here have Wilson with Pass, D'Agostino, CJ, VTL, ARC, Krell, etc that a long list of electronics.

I am extremely interested in hearing what the collective has to say. I do not have any arrested idea. It is more than likely that the Burmester 911 currently in my possession will be the main speakers' amp and that I am leaning more and more to acquire a Burmester 808. Not cast in stone. What I have heard from high efficiency speakers is very appealing to me.

 

[Geardaddy]

Who's Schumacher?

Lol. He is the home-brew you quote on the bottom of your page:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
— E. F. Schumacher
(mis-attributed to A. Einstein)

 

[DaveC]

I'd start to think in terms of what your room is going to look like... size? ...will it be a dedicated room you're willing to do anything to wrt acoustics or a living area?

Also, do you have a sense for whether you enjoy a speaker that is directional like Geddes or has wider dispersion like M2, or even wider like a direct radiator? As far as the NA15, a friend recently upgraded from a previous GedLee model to the NA15 and he's very happy. I've never felt the highs were good enough on these types of speakers, a CD with a Be diaphragm helps but a 1" CD in a horn just doesn't do extended highs, in fact the lower frequency range needs to be padded down to allow for 20 kHz extension... but from what my friend said the NA15 is far better in the highs, he notes this is the main improvement. As good as a speaker with a dedicated tweeter idk, I'd like to hear them and see sometime but this guy lives 3k miles away...

Another thing to consider is whether you really want to make the tradeoffs required to have a "perfect" speaker like the M2, it necessarily requires a fairly complex system as DSP is absolutely required for it to perform as intended. While DSP has gotten much better there is a performance advantage to be had by going with a simpler design with less in the signal path. In contrast to the M2, my speaker has a single capacitor for an electrical xo on the mids and the tweeter, everything else was done mechanically. Combined with a 100 dB sensitivity it offers a kind of performance that's pretty hard for less efficient and more complex speaker to match... But it also uses an advanced 384 kHz sampling rate DSP / 700W nCore amp for the active bass section, it's hard to deny the advantages of DSP for the bass.

 

[Al M.]

I've never felt the highs were good enough on these types of speakers, a CD with a Be diaphragm helps but a 1" CD in a horn just doesn't do extended highs, in fact the lower frequency range needs to be padded down to allow for 20 kHz extension...

Sorry, Dave, what does the acronym CD mean in the context?

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz, this is an interesting thread, and I agree that much can be learned from these forum discussions. However, I am confused by what seem to me to be your conflicting goals. On the one hand, you write that the goal should be for the system to be out of the way and reproduce this electrical signal as well as possible. This argues for a completely transparent system that presents the electrical signal. On the other hand, you write that you want a system to be capable of fooling you often and long enough that you think you are listening to something real. This argues that the system is an integral participant in the experience and that it should present a sound that fools you into thinking your are listening to actual live instruments, regardless of how well the recording is made or the quality of the signal.

I happen to subscribe to this second goal, that is to be fooled into thinking the sound in my listening room is that of real instruments, not the original event, but like my memory of past live performances. This is what a subjectivist favors because it is unverified and a personal impression. Strict adherence to the electrical signal, that is, complete transparence, verified by measurements, is what the objectivists seem to favor because the signal, from the recording, is concrete, it exists and it is all that we have.

Since we are discussing system building, and what and how we hear, I should clarify my position and the approach that I have taken. I have relied on my experience of listening to live acoustic music to guide me in the decisions that I have made with my listening room, system set up, and equipment purchases. Ultimately, I want the system to sound real. It so happens that it is also fairly transparent to the electrical signal, but not completely faithful to it. There are distortions and colorations that can be objectively measured, but they form a system of interactions which subjectively remind me of the sound of live music.

Could you clarify your position and approach for me, because I am confused by your goal as you begin to build your system? You write that you are starting with your speakers. Are they the pair that you find most transparent to the electrical signal, the most reminiscent of a real performance, or both? You have written that you are building your system around your speakers. How and why did you choose those speakers, and how will you now select the rest of the gear? Did you compare the sound of these speakers by listening to various systems and room configurations to the sound of real instruments or did you select the speakers with the best measurements to faithfully reproduce the electrical signal?

I am a firm believer that speakers are the most important item in a system. I have come along the years to even think they determine the acoustics treatment in the listening environment (or absence of acoustics treatments). IOW what works for a dipole may not work for a narrow -beam front-firing speaker. Others may see it in a different fashion and it is all good.. Different strokes and all that.
I believe the more transparent the system, the better it is able to recreate what is on the recording. Having lived for the past 6 years on headphones I do believe that transparency and believability are not antithetic. Adherence to the electric signal is to me paramount. Once this goal reached I can add in a controlled fashion whatever I deemed pleasing but I do not believe that the system must do it. In that way it cannot reproduce the differences that are bound to exist on recordings. Most basic the stark differences between a Mercury Living Presence in term of recording.. Trying to emulate a concert hall experience with the artificial construct that Pat Metheny's Orchestrion has to be. So my approach is to have a clea slate, I add the spices later if needs be.

For the most part we, audiophiles ( I am speaking for us now ) seem to prefer a mix and match approach. We have for the most part shunned system approach unles it is us at the helm ... So far active speakers have not made a dent in audiophile sales... I wonder why is that so? Could be prejudices some of these I am vaguely aware of?

FOr now I have some items I would like to include in my system: The Burmester 911 amp, perhaps the Burmester 808 Preamp or 077 with is own DAC module and perhaps the Berkeley DAC. This one more thanthe Burm 911 could be changed but I won't be adverse to a system approach such as the JBL M2... if it does float my boat. I haven't heard it yet. i have however recently heard some horns and was very pleased by what I heard, so much so as to consider these very seriously. I will go around auditioning some. I am abuto acquire a Geddes speaker just for fun, if I don't like it it will remain in the HT system. before that I will go around listening to various uber system and see how I can get close without the uber price. I am utterly convinced there are some gems out there. THe current mentality slow their adoption and/or consideration. Examples abound There is a DAC which I believe to be the equal of may costing up to 10 times its price the Gustard . I believe the Magnepan MG 3.7 to be one of the best speakers regardless of price... From what I have read Duke's Lejeune $12 K speaker system , complete with subs SWARM is as good as it gets .. there are many others. I may not be able to hear them all but the suggestion of the collective will help me form a decision and move forward. I don't subscribe tot he throw-money-at-it style of system building. I believe this may help many others. We are here to learn and share and that is what this thread is about.

 

[FrantzM]

Lol. He is the home-brew you quote on the bottom of your page:

lol


I didn't get your post .. Silly me

:

rotflmao

 

[BobShermanEsq]

Sorry, Dave, what does the acronym CD mean in the context?

Constant directivity.

http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/constant-directivity/


http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Constant_directivity_louds.htm

 

[DaveC]

Sorry, Dave, what does the acronym CD mean in the context?

Sorry, compression driver...

 

[microstrip]

microstrip

Your penchant to take the counterpoint of whatever I say is getting the best of you ..
Please don't speak as if you were the collective's voice. You are not. An example: there are people here within the collective that do have experiences with the speakers I mentioned. Actually there is a fellow here that knows almost anything that there is to know about JBL, (Rob I am speaking to you here ). DallasJustice and Joelinid to name those 2, have the 4367. Amir has the M2 if I am not mistaken or at any rate has vast experience with it. While those speakers may not have within WBF, the popularity of Wilson or Magico they are well known, so your point of is moot. That is what I call the knowledge of the collective.
I have no parti-pris .. I am getting more and ore interested in horns and nonobstant your view that horns and waveguide are two different things there is no consensus on their definitions since a horn is a waveguide too . So let's not get too fine here.. You get my point that those are two faces of the same coin.

Let's agree to disagree on the synergy thing. It is a tenet of your system building approach and not of mine. While your experience and knowledge of things audio is vast mine is not minuscule. I have been at this thing for several years. Not a pissing contest but I am sure you get my point. And what would be wrong with taking a different approach? Many people here have taken the road less travelled some mixing Pro and audiophile gear and for many of those who have heard it , ddk system based on a movie theater speaker with LAMM electronics is one of the best they'
ve heard. Same LAMM which seems to work well for speakers as diverse as Steve Williams Wilsons or Jack D201 VOn Swheikert VR 9 and VR11. Many here have Wilson with Pass, D'Agostino, CJ, VTL, ARC, Krell, etc that a long list of electronics.

I am extremely interested in hearing what the collective has to say. I do not have any arrested idea. It is more than likely that the Burmester 911 currently in my possession will be the main speakers' amp and that I am leaning more and more to acquire a Burmester 808. Not cast in stone. What I have heard from high efficiency speakers is very appealing to me.

I would say that I was triggered by two facts - I have been following the JBL debates in Audioheritage for some months, have exchanged some private conversation with David (DDK) on them, and I am curious by the evolution of JBLs and the new 4367. I saw potential in this debate, independently of OP. However I felt that a penchant for "ditching all audiophile pretenses" and then asking for audiophiles opinions to learn from them is rather curious ...

IMHO when you mix expensive tube or solid state audiophile amplifiers with horns or waveguides - the Guedes site has an excellent document on the difference and similarity, (*) we do not need coin analogies - you are just looking for different type of synergies, not throwing money away. IMHO the different approach you are taking about is dominated by synergy. You refer to DDK system - as far as I know about it it is an ultra tuned system, maximizing the synergy of critical "magical" aspects. My small experience with horns has shown me that they need critical matching, YMMV as well as those of others.

And yes I have read the experiences of the members you refer, although they now post more frequently in other forums. Some of them believe in magic, others not!

(*) http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/What%20is%20a%20Waveguide.pdf

"With the “waveguide” approach, one can find that precise contour that allows the wavefront to progress to the shape that is required at the
mouth to achieve the desired directivity. This is done with minimal diffraction and the resulting sound
quality is distinctly improved. To me this is a waveguide – when there is a minimum of diffraction used
to achieve the end result of directivity control. This can only be done through complex analysis and
clearly, not every horn is a waveguide under this definition. This is a fairly strict definition, but makes
far more sense that “everything is a waveguide” or “all waveguides are horns” and “any conduit is a
horn”. These loose definitions end up meaning nothing. Marketing, of course, wants the word to mean
as little as possible because that gives them as much wiggle room as possible to apply it to their
products.." (Quoted from this article)
[/I]

And Frantz, it is always a pleasure to debate with you.

 

[DaveC]

I am a firm believer that speakers are the most important item in a system.

FOr now I have some items I would like to include in my system: The Burmester 911 amp, perhaps the Burmester 808 Preamp or 077 with is own DAC module and perhaps the Berkeley DAC.

Well, start with the speakers and not the amp! For a preamp I'd seriously consider the Vinnie Rossi LIO with silver autoformer volume control and tube output stage, I know you don't want to tube roll but tubes last a very long time in a preamp and have some advantages as far as rendering vocals and acoustic instruments realistically and with good dimensionality. The silver slagleformers/autoformers are probably the best volume control available and from what I've heard from several people are head and shoulders above the copper units, which many think are the best, as in the Bent TAP-X preamp. I think the silver is a $2k upgrade but it is true that the volume control is exceptionally important and most of them suck.

One of the best sounds at last RMAF was Vinne Rossi and Harbeth.

 

[FrantzM]

I would say that I was triggered by two facts - I have been following the JBL debates in Audioheritage for some months, have exchanged some private conversation with David (DDK) on them, and I am curious by the evolution of JBLs and the new 4367. I saw potential in this debate, independently of OP. However I felt that a penchant for "ditching all audiophile pretenses" and then asking for audiophiles opinions to learn from them is rather curious ...

IMHO when you mix expensive tube or solid state audiophile amplifiers with horns or waveguides - the Guedes site has an excellent document on the difference and similarity, (*) we do not need coin analogies - you are just looking for different type of synergies, not throwing money away. IMHO the different approach you are taking about is dominated by synergy. You refer to DDK system - as far as I know about it it is an ultra tuned system, maximizing the synergy of critical "magical" aspects. My small experience with horns has shown me that they need critical matching, YMMV as well as those of others.

And yes I have read the experiences of the members you refer, although they now post more frequently in other forums. Some of them believe in magic, others not!

(*) http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/What%20is%20a%20Waveguide.pdf

"With the “waveguide” approach, one can find that precise contour that allows the wavefront to progress to the shape that is required at the
mouth to achieve the desired directivity. This is done with minimal diffraction and the resulting sound
quality is distinctly improved. To me this is a waveguide – when there is a minimum of diffraction used
to achieve the end result of directivity control. This can only be done through complex analysis and
clearly, not every horn is a waveguide under this definition. This is a fairly strict definition, but makes
far more sense that “everything is a waveguide” or “all waveguides are horns” and “any conduit is a
horn”. These loose definitions end up meaning nothing. Marketing, of course, wants the word to mean
as little as possible because that gives them as much wiggle room as possible to apply it to their
products.." (Quoted from this article)
[/I]

And Frantz, it is always a pleasure to debate with you.

I know microstrip and the feeling is mutual: We must meet in real life... Soon

Now about the thing at hand.
I have for most of my audiophile life been partial to planar but I have witnessed cone speakers getting better and better to the point that they IMO surpass the planars or most planars I have heard.. The Q3 for example is just my cup of tea. I could live with this speaker for a long time.. I have come to remove my prejudices toward horns, there is something very special about the delivery of horns when properly set-up. THe high sensitivity and the complete absence of power compression is difficult to not get addicted to. They're the bomb! I like what they do more and more and believe they could be a new experience in music reproduction for me... no more than an old Voice of the Theater to remind you on how good they were/are . i do find these VoTT form time to time on e-Bay. but they're old big and ugly .. Geddes? I like his approach a lot... THere is a person that uses Geddes Abbey with Atmasphere 60 watters with great results it seems.. One of my favorite speaker of all time is the Acapella Sphaedron .. Obscene in price... but man! they sounded incredible when I heard them several years ago...
Moreover I would like to think this thread is not about my need but a place for some to discuss what is going on with their views on system-building. Again I don't cotton to the notion of "expensive electronics" as a standard of quality. and that you know nor do I believe in synergy. So your views are welcome as usual.

 

[BobShermanEsq]

Sorry, compression driver...

I was wrong. thought you were talking about constant directivity. Sorry. I have always preferred wide dispersion. What is your preference in regards to dispersion? I have scaled down in recent years and simplified my system. Moved away from horns and now listen to either NS1000s, SL700s are LS50s. I hope Frantz finds his ideal system, but it is not easy, and even when you think you have... you often say, what if...

 

[DaveC]

I was wrong. thought you were talking about constant directivity. Sorry. I have always preferred wide dispersion. What is your preference in regards to dispersion? I have scaled down in recent years and simplified my system. Moved away from horns and now listen to either NS1000s, SL700s are LS50s. I hope Frantz finds his ideal system, but it is not easy, and even when you think you have... you often say, what if...

No problem, I shouldn't have been so lazy

I prefer narrower dispersion and prefer to hear more direct vs reflected sound. Conventional dynamic speakers can sound good but usually only after a lot of room treatments. One of the rooms I had my gear in at RMAF last year had ~$40k in treatments brought in. With narrower dispersion the room is far less influential and while room acoustics are still important they don't require the same kinds and quantity of acoustic treatments, for example first reflection points are almost a non-issue.

A very accurate, directive speaker can sound almost like headphones and IME this can take some getting used to, acclimation is a huge part of our preferences... But once you're used to a more directional speaker wider dispersion also sounds strange until you adjust again. Without a lot of listening experience it's difficult to differentiate true preferences from acclimation.

 

[Al M.]

Sorry, compression driver...

Thanks.

 

[fas42]

Frantz, this is an interesting thread, and I agree that much can be learned from these forum discussions. However, I am confused by what seem to me to be your conflicting goals. On the one hand, you write that the goal should be for the system to be out of the way and reproduce this electrical signal as well as possible. This argues for a completely transparent system that presents the electrical signal. On the other hand, you write that you want a system to be capable of fooling you often and long enough that you think you are listening to something real. This argues that the system is an integral participant in the experience and that it should present a sound that fools you into thinking your are listening to actual live instruments, regardless of how well the recording is made or the quality of the signal.

I happen to subscribe to this second goal, that is to be fooled into thinking the sound in my listening room is that of real instruments, not the original event, but like my memory of past live performances. This is what a subjectivist favors because it is unverified and a personal impression. Strict adherence to the electrical signal, that is, complete transparence, verified by measurements, is what the objectivists seem to favor because the signal, from the recording, is concrete, it exists and it is all that we have.

Peter, the very fortunate truth is that those two goals co-exist - in fact, if correct implementation of the system is done they will always, I repeat, always, occur. Of course, if a slight deviation is chosen along the way because "it seems like a good thing", then, all bets are off!

Why attempts often fail is because the process of refining is not vigorous enough - "I think that's good enough!" will never fly - 98% of what needs to be done is not 100%, and so the end result will, yet again, fall short.

Why objectivists fail is because they only go by standard measurements of 'accuracy' - aspects of correctness that are essential they completely ignore, because they can't measure it. The solution, at the moment, is to use the ear to detect incompetence, lack of accuracy, and continue to improve the system as needed.

Sufficient accuracy, which also means adequate transparency then translates, automatically, into a system that fools you - a very big mistake would be to try and fiddle what you have into something that fools you, some of the time, as the primary method of tweaking. This will always fail, because the intrinsic accuracy is not good enough, and it only needs the next recording to glaringly highlight the remaining flaws - and the illusion shatters.

My method has always been to work on accuracy, and it has always succeeded; initially there were recordings that still didn't "work", but this was because my standard of accuracy was not good enough; my methods steadily improved over the years, and now I don't fear any recording being able to undermine my "work".

 

[DaveC]

Peter, the very fortunate truth is that those two goals co-exist - in fact, if correct implementation of the system is done they will always, I repeat, always, occur. Of course, if a slight deviation is chosen along the way because "it seems like a good thing", then, all bets are off!

Why attempts often fail is because the process of refining is not vigorous enough - "I think that's good enough!" will never fly - 98% of what needs to be done is not 100%, and so the end result will, yet again, fall short.

Why objectivists fail is because they only go by standard measurements of 'accuracy' - aspects of correctness that are essential they completely ignore, because they can't measure it. The solution, at the moment, is to use the ear to detect incompetence, lack of accuracy, and continue to improve the system as needed.

Sufficient accuracy, which also means adequate transparency then translates, automatically, into a system that fools you - a very big mistake would be to try and fiddle what you have into something that fools you, some of the time, as the primary method of tweaking. This will always fail, because the intrinsic accuracy is not good enough, and it only needs the next recording to glaringly highlight the remaining flaws - and the illusion shatters.

My method has always been to work on accuracy, and it has always succeeded; initially there were recordings that still didn't "work", but this was because my standard of accuracy was not good enough; my methods steadily improved over the years, and now I don't fear any recording being able to undermine my "work".

Why don't you start a thread detailing your process?

FWIW, I've built one of my systems from source output to speaker driver, every part and design chosen by me and of the highest quality. Also I built all power cables and modified an already great power conditioner to my standards. I've gone so far as to design my own wire and have it manufactured for me because nothing on the market did what I wanted it to. I understand the result you can achieve is often shockingly good compared to most commercial gear, but keep in mind people here have some really nice systems and I would guess there's some possibility some of their systems might be better than you've ever experienced and maybe you could still learn a thing or two. Once you think you're an expert, learning stops and the mind closes...

 

[fas42]

Why don't you start a thread detailing your process?

FWIW, I've built one of my systems from source output to speaker driver, every part and design chosen by me and of the highest quality. Also I built all power cables and modified an already great power conditioner to my standards. I've gone so far as to design my own wire and have it manufactured for me because nothing on the market did what I wanted it to. I understand the result you can achieve is often shockingly good compared to most commercial gear, but keep in mind people here have some really nice systems and I would guess there's some possibility some of their systems might be better than you've ever experienced and maybe you could still learn a thing or two. Once you think you're an expert, learning stops and the mind closes...

Dave, there's a thread on the Members' Gallery that does that very thing, http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2966-A-Search-for-Truth-and-Tonality. My interest is not to have the "best" system, I haven't the money for that; I have already mentioned in an earlier post here that I'm sure very high quality systems, well sorted would present higher quality sound in some areas, this is not in dispute.

To give you an example of what I expect from a fully competent system: if asked to evaluate in as short a time as possible some unknown system I would put on some older, extremely complex pop composition, with extensive use of effects, and normal vocals, that was very high energy in nature. And wind the volume up and up and up; the playback would have to be 100% clean right up to PA levels of SPL. If the playback couldn't do this it would be an immediate fail, and I would have learned on the way most of what was important about that system's capabilities.

An example of something that I couldn't make fail a version of that test was the Bryston and Dynaudio combo I mentioned in an earlier post ...

 

[marty]

What a wonderful thread! A very enjoyable read.

What I am looking for is rather simple. I want to hear a system that I don’t have to think about. I want to listen through it and let the music do the talking. I’ve been fortunate to hear such a system a handful of times. And most of those systems were far humbler than mine. That’s the eye opener! They really need not be ne ultra plus systems. I’m not sure I can agree with wanting a system that is “accurate” in the sense of being able to reproduce what I hear in the hall, since what I hear in the hall varies greatly depending on where I sit. Do I want to reproduce what’s on the master tape? Perhaps, but doing that well at 75dB is very different from doing that well at 95dB. Just plop me down in a chair and play music at satisfying levels that puts a smile on my face. Is that too much to ask?

Now here’s the rub. I may have been fortunate to have gotten there with my own system a few times. But thanks to self-deception and human frailty, I have occasionally made changes that took years of wandering to get back to a place I was happy at previously. I don’t think I’m the only audiophile that has experienced that. I speak primarily of myself when I say that audiophiles are often their own worst enemy. Perfect can definitely be the enemy of good. Will I ever learn? I hope so. The journey continues and hope springs eternal.

 

[fas42]

marty, isn't it the way?!! ... .

It is a disease to think that just by changing something, putting in a bit that's "superior" to what you currently have, that automatically it has to be better!! Noooope ... , .

The trick is to get a system into the "zone" ... and then, tread very, very lightly!! Don't stop trying things, but be 100% sure at any point that you reverse any "damage" done - always be able to go back to what did work, recover from the "mistake", . Exceptional sound is very, very fragile - it has to be nurtured, taken a great deal of care with ...