How do you design and assess your system?

[the sound of Tao]

It’s fascinating to me how we develop a sound system. The goals we set. The concept behind our systems. Our specific aims. How we benchmark our achievements. How we analyse what is happening in the system. What is the primary purpose of the system for you. How do you identify the potentials and constraints in the system and problem solve. What are the criteria of a system that you assess.

We are in the business of continuous improvement. We spend a fortune in time and in capital investment. Can we afford to just be accidental. Do you have a definable process. Are you primarily objective or subjective in your decision making and given the context of listening to music is there a 50/50 split between the objective and subjective or does one assessment form dominate the other for you. Can you define what you are you aiming for. How do you review how you are going? Is it important to be conscious of a system design concept and to also have a defined individual design philosophy to go for? How conscious are we and what process do we use to evaluate holistically and elementally what our systems are doing and why. Is music the essential purpose or is it the sound? Do you look for the best recording or the best performance. Can you tell when you are primarily listening to the sound or listening to the music. Can we separate these two deliverables or are they just inherently enmeshed. How do you assess your system in whole and in part? What is the final review for you? Is there an end point (destination) and how do you define that end point. I’d ask a few more questions but I think I’ve run out of question marks. Just intrigued about what is driving us all and where we are all heading.

 

[PeterA]

It’s fascinating to me how we develop a sound system. The goals we set. The concept behind our systems. Our specific aims. How we benchmark our achievements. How we analyse what is happening in the system. What is the primary purpose of the system for you. How do you identify the potentials and constraints in the system and problem solve. What are the criteria of a system that you assess.

We are in the business of continuous improvement. We spend a fortune in time and in capital investment. Can we afford to just be accidental. Do you have a definable process. Are you primarily objective or subjective in your decision making and given the context of listening to music is there a 50/50 split between the objective and subjective or does one assessment form dominate the other for you. Can you define what you are you aiming for. How do you review how you are going? Is it important to be conscious of a system design concept and to also have a defined individual design philosophy to go for? How conscious are we and what process do we use to evaluate holistically and elementally what our systems are doing and why. Is music the essential purpose or is it the sound? Do you look for the best recording or the best performance. Can you tell when you are primarily listening to the sound or listening to the music. Can we separate these two deliverables or are they just inherently enmeshed. How do you assess your system in whole and in part? What is the final review for you? Is there an end point (destination) and how do you define that end point. I’d ask a few more questions but I think I’ve run out of question marks. Just intrigued about what is driving us all and where we are all heading.

Excellent post and topic for discussion. You ask many questions, so I will address now what I highlighted. I try to achieve some balance between the sound and the emotional connection to the music. In my home system, as opposed to my truck audio or some other cheap form of music listening, I am after enjoyment of my system. However, for it to be most enjoyable, I have to believe that it sounds convincing to me, relative to my memory of attending live events. Once the system achieves this, I can get past it and onto emotional involvement and a somewhat transcendental experience. It seems we all go about this differently. Some focus on gear, some on set up, some on the combination, and some on something else.

Just recently I have witnessed a friend's system change dramatically after gear changes to speakers, electronics, and DAC. I heard another friend's system change dramatically last week after he experimented with room/acoustic treatments and listening chair and speaker set up. The latter transformation was greater. This just demonstrates that there are many ways to affect change and improvement. I continue to be surprised by this.

As my own system has developed, I began looking for good recordings. As it improves, I am searching out better performances. I used to listen primarily to the sound, especially when making changes to improve the overall performance. Once I think it sounds better, I listen more to the music. These two deliverables can be separated, but ultimately, for me, they are inherently enmeshed. As the sound improves, I listen less to the recording and more to the sound on it, and more to the music on it. It is an evolutionary process for me, occasionally mixed with revolutionary insights, and I seem to oscillate back and forth while trying to move toward the goal of emotional connection to the performance.

The gear is important but I think the set up after a certain level is what really creates the magic. I think some kind of goal is essential, and a reference is important to keep one on the path moving forward. We all go about this differently, and the lucky ones may end up at similar places. It is an intensely personal hobby, in my opinion. And it is fascinating.

 

[ack]

Can you define what you are you aiming for. How do you review how you are going? Is it important to be conscious of a system design concept and to also have a defined individual design philosophy to go for? How conscious are we and what process do we use to evaluate holistically and elementally what our systems are doing and why. Is music the essential purpose or is it the sound? Do you look for the best recording or the best performance. Can you tell when you are primarily listening to the sound or listening to the music. Can we separate these two deliverables or are they just inherently enmeshed. How do you assess your system in whole and in part? What is the final review for you?

Most profound questions...

1) Can you define what you are you aiming for: transparency to the recording - period
2) How do you review how you are going: timbre and articulation
3) Is it important to be conscious of a system design concept: absolutely
4) How conscious are we and what process do we use to evaluate holistically and elementally what our systems are doing and why: see #9
5) Is music the essential purpose or is it the sound: it's the music
6) Do you look for the best recording or the best performance: performance
7) Can you tell when you are primarily listening to the sound or listening to the music: both
8) Can we separate these two deliverables or are they just inherently enmeshed: they are absolutely entangled with each other
9) How do you assess your system in whole and in part: I always ask myself "Why the hell does it sound like that"

 

[bonzo75]

The problem with such questions is the Colgate case study. When you ask people why they buy Colgate, they might say fresh breath, anti cavity, etc etc, while the answer usually is that they buy it because their parents bought it and they grew up getting used to it. People buy irrationally and justify rationally

 

[ddk]

It’s fascinating to me how we develop a sound system. The goals we set. The concept behind our systems. Our specific aims. How we benchmark our achievements. How we analyse what is happening in the system. What is the primary purpose of the system for you. How do you identify the potentials and constraints in the system and problem solve. What are the criteria of a system that you assess.

We are in the business of continuous improvement. We spend a fortune in time and in capital investment. Can we afford to just be accidental. Do you have a definable process. Are you primarily objective or subjective in your decision making and given the context of listening to music is there a 50/50 split between the objective and subjective or does one assessment form dominate the other for you. Can you define what you are you aiming for. How do you review how you are going? Is it important to be conscious of a system design concept and to also have a defined individual design philosophy to go for? How conscious are we and what process do we use to evaluate holistically and elementally what our systems are doing and why. Is music the essential purpose or is it the sound? Do you look for the best recording or the best performance. Can you tell when you are primarily listening to the sound or listening to the music. Can we separate these two deliverables or are they just inherently enmeshed. How do you assess your system in whole and in part? What is the final review for you? Is there an end point (destination) and how do you define that end point. I’d ask a few more questions but I think I’ve run out of question marks. Just intrigued about what is driving us all and where we are all heading.

IME most audiophiles are after the same type of sound but they don't know it until they've heard. IME working with clients and friends majority don't have a clear final goal and mostly work on incremental improvements or differences in portions of their sound rather working on the big picture. This is understandable given how few people ever hear what's really possible with reproduced analog sound and mostly rely on media or other people's compromised systems. I know my epiphany came from hearing a system that was really modest yet it blew away every high priced high end system that I every heard and/or owned, it was only then when I realized how far off I was in the quest high end sound. My other major discovery was visiting Sea Cliff on a couple of occasions and hearing HP's systems knowing that everything taught in his rag was wrong or a lie.

david

 

[the sound of Tao]

Excellent post and topic for discussion. You ask many questions, so I will address now what I highlighted. I try to achieve some balance between the sound and the emotional connection to the music. In my home system, as opposed to my truck audio or some other cheap form of music listening, I am after enjoyment of my system. However, for it to be most enjoyable, I have to believe that it sounds convincing to me, relative to my memory of attending live events. Once the system achieves this, I can get past it and onto emotional involvement and a somewhat transcendental experience. It seems we all go about this differently. Some focus on gear, some on set up, some on the combination, and some on something else.

Just recently I have witnessed a friend's system change dramatically after gear changes to speakers, electronics, and DAC. I heard another friend's system change dramatically last week after he experimented with room/acoustic treatments and listening chair and speaker set up. The latter transformation was greater. This just demonstrates that there are many ways to affect change and improvement. I continue to be surprised by this.

As my own system has developed, I began looking for good recordings. As it improves, I am searching out better performances. I used to listen primarily to the sound, especially when making changes to improve the overall performance. Once I think it sounds better, I listen more to the music. These two deliverables can be separated, but ultimately, for me, they are inherently enmeshed. As the sound improves, I listen less to the recording and more to the sound on it, and more to the music on it. It is an evolutionary process for me, occasionally mixed with revolutionary insights, and I seem to oscillate back and forth while trying to move toward the goal of emotional connection to the performance.

The gear is important but I think the set up after a certain level is what really creates the magic. I think some kind of goal is essential, and a reference is important to keep one on the path moving forward. We all go about this differently, and the lucky ones may end up at similar places. It is an intensely personal hobby, in my opinion. And it is fascinating.

Very much in agreement... and it is such a personal hobby and sometimes when I’m reading where others are going I see connections among all of us but still we take such seemingly separate journeys.

The group assessment that you guys do I’d suggest is a fantastic way of speeding the process, challenging fixed notions and spurring each other on and inspiring each other plus fantastic open feedback.

The idea that as your sound improves you listen more to the music completely resonates for me as this is one of the big holistic goals and one that I look to as a summative thing. I use the amount of my focus is purely on the music as a key indicator for essential rightness to how successful a change is to the system sound.

You mention how it is both evolutionary and sometimes revolutionary... guessing that your recent significant shift in setup is that very seismic kind of repurposing where so much of your gear and setup approach is modified it that the kind of radical re-direction effects so many things it must be challenging to get a gauge on all the outcomes. It’s helpful to see not just what you’ve done but also how you navigate through re-setting or maybe reprioritising your aims.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The problem with such questions is the Colgate case study. When you ask people why they buy Colgate, they might say fresh breath, anti cavity, etc etc, while the answer usually is that they buy it because their parents bought it and they grew up getting used to it. People buy irrationally and justify rationally

I usually don’t admit how much of my decision making is instinctive because we all like to feel we are reasoned creatures of the light. But yes, instinct and feeling is where an idea starts for me and then I try and understand the why of it.

I figure we all start into this process just with a simple elevated transcendent moment in listening to a recording or more importantly a piece of music. We then beat the hell out of ourselves trying to replicate that and then intensify that moment and suddenly it is a consumption and a lifelong path.

Your path on this Ked is particularly individual and taken you on a massive pilgrimage but you are clearly caught up in trying to get an outcome ie a sound system but also an understanding of how it all works.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes you are right about the last part. I want to understand how things fit in in my own way, different value trade off points, get rid of itches to maximum extent possible before I settle down.

 

[spiritofmusic]

For me, I think I might have gone around in circles. It's apparent now in hindsight that my old space is what's known in the trade as a "mare". I of course wasn't aware too conciously of the worst aspects of it, was more comments from truthsayer Ked, and close audiophile friend Blue58.

Indeed, listening to Blue's system some 5 years ago, I was in a bit of a funk on returning to mine. It was around this time I heard Cessaro Liszts I loved, and would go on to hear customised Apogee Duettas. One of these alternatives would very likely have replaced my Zus.

But I am certain that my problems would only have multiplied, because the room was the primary issue...way more demonstrative forensic spkrs would only have forensically demonstrated I was cursed with a very low performance ceiling.

 

[the sound of Tao]

IME most audiophiles are after the same type of sound but they don't know it until they've heard. IME working with clients and friends majority don't have a clear final goal and mostly work on incremental improvements or differences in portions of their sound rather working on the big picture. This is understandable given how few people ever hear what's really possible with reproduced analog sound and mostly rely on media or other people's compromised systems. I know my epiphany came from hearing a system that was really modest yet it blew away every high priced high end system that I every heard and/or owned, it was only then when I realized how far off I was in the quest high end sound. My other major discovery was visiting Sea Cliff on a couple of occasions and hearing HP's systems knowing that everything taught in his rag was wrong or a lie.

david

Hearing other people’s systems is big learning point for me as well, still referencing how natural or relatively close it is to music in life but then you hear elements that someone else has nailed and try and take that back into your own system.

That epiphany when a modest system is doing so much right is a giant head implosion moment. I’ve ended up with a two way OB and a widebander horn that starts rolling off nicely at 18khz. It’s doing most things so very right.

 

[bonzo75]

The thing with listening to other people's systems is the uber ones almost always are the result of massive effort on the individual's parts. The small ones surprise you, it is low budget gear matching to make a nice compromise. And then there is the between.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think constantly upgrading the weakest link works well , but having a clear vision to what you wanna achieve is the most important.
If you have no map you get lost.

 

[IanG-UK]

Gosh what a question.

I think my criteria for design and assessment will be quite different from many here - though I have never documented them before.

My starting point must have been 40 years ago when I heard Quad Electrostatics (the originals) at a hifi show in a substantial brick built room in a hotel in Harrogate. At that time, and just before the Quad ESL63 emerged, these were (in my view) way ahead of the competition and they set the aural experience I wanted to recreate at home.

Since that time I have owned Quad 57s, Quad EL63s, the 63s with Gradient subwoofers, the Quad 989s and the Quad 2905s. In reality, all a bit too big for my room but, for me, far ahead of the competition. I tried Celestion SL600s - which were early versions of the Magico approach - and CML Etudes - which were identical dual drivers based on BMR technology - with both these loudspeakers designed by Graham Bank - but they could never quite equal the Quads for midrange purity nor attain high volume levels which were Quad 57 and Quad 63 limitations.

Only when Magico came along did I find something of “Quad” sound quality and with sufficient volume capability - firstly with the Magico Q1 accompanied by the remarkable Wilson Benesch Torus single subwoofer; and currently with the Magico M3.

So those loudspeaker criteria set the key qualification for getting over the first hurdle.

I’ve five other criteria which are rarely mentioned.

Firstly I eliminate all manufacturers who don’t satisfy my behaviour criteria. So the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor and retailer must all tell the same coherent and believable story. Things like no claims that product mk2 is significantly better than product mk1 issued last year. No claims that their product wipes the floor with the competition. All simple but so many get it wrong.

Secondly, the designer needs to be either highly innovative and/or have a record of producing non-churned product for many years.

I could give so many names under items 1 and 2 … but I better not.

Thirdly, the electronics must be small. I see many systems on WBF where the space between the speakers is filled with gear. For me that would be awful. So my amplifiers/dacs are thin and wall mounted and my prime source is small and sited centrally and so not a distraction.

Fourthly, the electronics must have just the facilities I need but no more and no less. One thing that amazes me is the disappearance of the balance control. The chance of getting a room that does not need it is, in my judgement, quite low in a normal domestic environment; and a few recordings are imbalanced too.

Fifthly, at demonstrations the exhibitor must play a majority of known and naturally produced music at the right volume. This, in my view, disqualifies 75% of demonstrations, if not more!

Turning to comparative listening, I do not do it. It is impractical even to make the most straightforward changes - like loudspeaker cables - in a timeframe where the first listening experience is still ingrained. I think this element of the selection methodology remains insurmountable and has to be an accumulation of listening experiences with different music in different rooms, plus plenty of reviews from the few respected reviewers and enthusiasts around.

That’s my initial response. Maybe later I will realise I could have expressed something better, or omitted a key factor for me, but there we are!

 

[Folsom]

@ddk I completely understand that. Until you hear it's hard to know. Very hard. Designing gear has taught me a lot about how to get different types of sound, so it allowed me to hone in more on the things that experienced people like yourself talk about. You have to start reading between the lines when reading/hearing stuff, and knowing the faults present in stereos when trying to pick up on information that might be useful. Once you start really cataloging what will be wrong with a stereo, you can pick out the things that might be right. It's hard to explain, my subconscious does most of the work.

Gut instincts are good on very short impressions. Short evaluations will make you choose stuff that's better in some way but then the one and only true question comes up; how much do you listen to the music? And the sub-question is are you listening to the music or the stereo? During short evaluations and little experience you're likely to choose the wrong thing. Sometimes you choose something that seems a bit better but the only reason it is better is because you have some other problem in the stereo that needs fixed. For these reasons I tend to spend a lot of time with small changes to hone in on what matters, and what works. But for me this isn't about "do I like this amplifier" it's more like evaluating capacitors in different locations, tuning some of the parameters that can be to taste in the circuit, trying different transistors... But the end questions are the same; how much do I listen and am I listening to the music and not the stereo?

In some ways we all could learn a bit from the guys that are happy with certain vintage gear and spend all their time sifting through records - but not the guys who have 100k records and don't play them.

The biggest factor besides how to choose stuff, that limits your scope of selection, is lifestyle style of speaker size, listening habits, and space you have. It's probably a bad idea to get the MM7's if you prefer a non-dedicated room and listening a lot with friends over for dinner... but if you've got a really damn nice barn adjacent to the house and you like to listen while working... we all know that answer.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It’s fascinating to me how we develop a sound system. The goals we set. The concept behind our systems. Our specific aims. How we benchmark our achievements. How we analyse what is happening in the system. What is the primary purpose of the system for you. How do you identify the potentials and constraints in the system and problem solve. What are the criteria of a system that you assess.

where to start?

too much for one post. i'll add more later.

i separate my system imagining, aims, goals in three parts. my whole mind set evolved from period to period on where i was coming from, my feedback and adjustment process, and my expectations.,

phase 1--

1995-2003---being in a 12' x 18' x 10.5' room----over 8 years i discovered i loved dedicated listening and moved forward quickly to improve things; initially by asking lots of questions, reading reviews, talking to hifi dealers. also; learning about jazz and classical music, which to start with i knew nothing about, getting back into vinyl after fatherhood had removed me from that for 18 years. toward the end of this period i had moved on from other's views and developed my own reference. i tweaked this small room acoustically as best i could and faced musical limitations from the room.

my goal during this time was maximum enjoyment, and a sense of realism. i had my reference tracks and investigation process, and did learn how to get to that 'zen' state to hear into the music to see how i liked it. my change from following other's views, to holding my own reference caused me to change gear to more musical and coherent gear......and to desire a capacity to have the system do justice to large scale music.

phase 2--

2004--2014---the barn. build a room without limitations. and basically go backwards in performance while increasing potential dramatically, and learn lots of hard expensive lessons about system development in an unlimited room and system. moved forward with gear choices but not quite reaching harmony. high points and low points.

goals during this time were similar to later, but my expectations were more modest, since i did not understand what could and should happen considering the potential. i used 75 to 100 reference tracks with each change, and really enjoyed those focused listening times.

phase 3---

2015---the present--attain clarity of a reference in my mind. then worked to make set-up and room treatment changes chasing my reference. finally fixed FR issues and cleared up harshness. unleashed the large scale music potential of the system.

expectations now were unlimited. i should hear it all. and critical listening now focused on degrees of nuance and expressiveness of the music. the basics were now in place consistently. fine tuning only. improved all my sources piece by piece. i had confidence that my system told me the whole truth relative to my own very high expectations.

 

[thedudeabides]

The thing with listening to other people's systems is the uber ones almost always are the result of massive effort on the individual's parts. The small ones surprise you, it is low budget gear matching to make a nice compromise. And then there is the between.

I agree Ked. I believe I have "relatively" low budget (for hi end) gear and, to my ear, it's a very musical, emotionally satisfying compromise with no desire to upgrade with the exception of upgrading my Pulsars with the new mid bass graphene driver this summer which was not available when I initially purchased the speakers. And I occasionaly remind myself that my system has a current "street" value of approx. $20K. Having said that, it took me awhile to get to where I am today.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I ve listed the route in my system page for who is interested.
For now i m quite okay with the acoustics its not perfect.but quite listenable.
Adding music is now my weakest link
Tape is more my thing so adding good music is more or less the future and i might discover something else along the way.
My references , ....hmmm somebody playing piano in a airport hall and just listen for 25 minutes.
Just piano no special hall no amps nothing.
I havent been to a dealer or show in years , my road is music not bling bling or the latest hot thing .


Ps i would actually like to go to the recording side of things that would be really interesting

 

[microstrip]

Listening to stereo in an individual experiment, carried with many compromises. Understanding them and knowing that no system can have it all is a good start. Great experiences with other top systems will show us more about the capabilities of stereo systems but also that the great epiphanies are not systematic and consistent.

Analysis of behavior of audiophiles in the high-end will show that they are extremely individualist but sometimes love to think they follow common lines just because they share some details or dogmas. BTW, in most cases the more relevant difference between our current systems and the systems we owned ten years ago is our age and expectations! All IMHO, YMMV.

 

[the sound of Tao]

where to start?

too much for one post. i'll add more later.

i separate my system imagining, aims, goals in three parts. my whole mind set evolved from period to period on where i was coming from, my feedback and adjustment process, and my expectations.,

phase 1--

1995-2003---being in a 12' x 18' x 10.5' room----over 8 years i discovered i loved dedicated listening and moved forward quickly to improve things; initially by asking lots of questions, reading reviews, talking to hifi dealers. also; learning about jazz and classical music, which to start with i knew nothing about, getting back into vinyl after fatherhood had removed me from that for 18 years. toward the end of this period i had moved on from other's views and developed my own reference. i tweaked this small room acoustically as best i could and faced musical limitations from the room.

my goal during this time was maximum enjoyment, and a sense of realism. i had my reference tracks and investigation process, and did learn how to get to that 'zen' state to hear into the music to see how i liked it. my change from following other's views, to holding my own reference caused me to change gear to more musical and coherent gear......and to desire a capacity to have the system do justice to large scale music.

phase 2--

2004--2014---the barn. build a room without limitations. and basically go backwards in performance while increasing potential dramatically, and learn lots of hard expensive lessons about system development in an unlimited room and system. moved forward with gear choices but not quite reaching harmony. high points and low points.

goals during this time were similar to later, but my expectations were more modest, since i did not understand what could and should happen considering the potential. i used 75 to 100 reference tracks with each change, and really enjoyed those focused listening times.

phase 3---

2015---the present--attain clarity of a reference in my mind. then worked to make set-up and room treatment changes chasing my reference. finally fixed FR issues and cleared up harshness. unleashed the large scale music potential of the system.

expectations now were unlimited. i should hear it all. and critical listening now focused on degrees of nuance and expressiveness of the music. the basics were now in place consistently. fine tuning only. improved all my sources piece by piece. i had confidence that my system told me the whole truth relative to my own very high expectations.

Marc mentioned going in circles, and Mike sees phases, I can definitely see distinct phases in aims and approaches as well but think this has come out in a cycle.

Initiation for me was in early experiences and first transcendent moments in connection to music through live music.

One uncle a jazz muso, the other a film maker with a recording studio my early gear experience was then in pro gear including stage gear (and also recording on nagra with sennheiser shotgun mikes recording for voice over work and documentary films). So I came at this as a technical experience initially.

So phase 1 was much like Mike’s much in gathering info but very much focussed on measurement and specs. I used data to inform my system choices and was possibly more of a temporary objectivist in gear choice. Ticked lots of boxes with gear purchases and listened to audiophile recordings a lot so the gear I bought could then shine. Big transmission lines speakers, 150 watt SS amp and preamp and extended frequency and big sound was the aim and measure of my success. But every phase leads to another as this phase took me on an excursion away from music and embedded me more deeply in the sound.

Phase 2 - valves and 2 way stand mounts (Proac) chasing more the emotional connection but still very focussed on the essential beauty of sound. First inklings that natural sound was something much better to chase over big sound and extended frequency. Not terribly analytical at all but a perpetuated beauty that wasn’t totally based in fidelity it was rose coloured and easy but had an imprint that homogenised the experiences of different recordings. But very much enjoyed again the music and performance.

Phase 3 - back to big SS to chase scale and immediacy with big panels. The Maggies hinting more towards moments of realness but still a bit lost also in chasing the sonic feats, the Maggies taught me about hearing differences and made evident every change and focussed me in refining my analytical skills but shifted the balance toward listening consistently for sonic parameters again as a measure of success while still loving the experience of sound and the music.

Phase 4 a return to the beginnings, the era of horns and set, actually more set and forget really, letting go of analysis for a while and just drenching the brain in dopamine and pleasure. Being there in the music. I’m completely uninterested in changing the prime system now (so while nothing is perfect) I only hear essential rightness and so am for the first time consistently undistracted by inconsistent elements. No sense of essential wrongness that draws my attention away from the music. I was initiated in music and I feel like that is where I am focussed again so perhaps the phases have created a cycle.

I love exploring systems and gear and will use development of other systems to get out my urge to build, play and improve the gear but I do believe I have found a destination in terms of just an ongoing and deep and pure connection to just experiencing music.

 

[PeterA]

Very much in agreement... and it is such a personal hobby and sometimes when I’m reading where others are going I see connections among all of us but still we take such seemingly separate journeys.

The group assessment that you guys do I’d suggest is a fantastic way of speeding the process, challenging fixed notions and spurring each other on and inspiring each other plus fantastic open feedback.

The idea that as your sound improves you listen more to the music completely resonates for me as this is one of the big holistic goals and one that I look to as a summative thing. I use the amount of my focus is purely on the music as a key indicator for essential rightness to how successful a change is to the system sound.

You mention how it is both evolutionary and sometimes revolutionary... guessing that your recent significant shift in setup is that very seismic kind of repurposing where so much of your gear and setup approach is modified it that the kind of radical re-direction effects so many things it must be challenging to get a gauge on all the outcomes. It’s helpful to see not just what you’ve done but also how you navigate through re-setting or maybe reprioritising your aims.

Tao, Yes, our local Boston group does provide open and candid feedback. This does lead to some progress as others' opinions can be useful. However, my recent changes have left my audio buddies cold and I suspect they think I have taken some major steps in the wrong direction. One told me so directly, the others didn't offer much comment, but their lack of feedback and enthusiasm was revealing. Nevertheless, I continue in this new direction unperturbed.

The reliance on others' opinions can take one so far, but in the end, I am discovering that I am following my own directions now. I am throwing out much of what I have learned, and approaching my path from a different direction. Set up and a clearer vision are more important to me now than gear. Perhaps gear changes will follow at some point. I'm not yet ready to jump on the SET/Horn route, but I am shifting priorities, and feel I am making big gains. I am also unlearning past approaches that I thought were sacred.

People rarely mention epiphanies. I have had a couple recently which caused me to swerve off of the road. I have shared some of these events on my system thread. So far, there are no gear changes besides cables and power cords, if those are considered gear. I've removed things from the system and room. I am learning more about set up. The goal is not changing, I just have a clearer path forward than I used to have.