How do you know what you want from your audio system?

[Ron Resnick]

How do you know what you want from your audio system?

I think this is a very interesting question, Tim. Thank you for starting this thread.

I think this is an important question -- a threshold question. If one does not know what one wants (what I call one's "objective") how can one plan, with research and listening experiences, to get to the goal?

There are different ways to describe what we want from our audio systems (in my parlance, there are different possible objectives of high-end audio).

Here is the framework of possible objectives a group of us on WBF developed in 2016:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

Of course people can quibble with these objectives, and how they are described. But I think that this list truly has explanatory power. I believe that this framework is an advancement from Jonathan Valin's attempt at the same question.* Audiophiles, when describing what they want from their audio systems, often say or write things which track closely one of these objectives.

In Karen Sumner's wonderful essay, "A Gold Standard for Listening Evaluations," she described a beginning principle as: "come as close as possible to revealing accurately all the information that is embedded on the source material. Karen then described a later principle as: "create a system that gets out of the way of the music so that we can suspend our belief that we are only listening to a hi fi and feel more connected to actual music listening experiences."

Karen's beginning principle, "come as close as possible to revealing accurately all the information that is embedded on the source material," seems to me to be substantially the same as Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

Karen's later principle, "create a system that gets out of the way of the music so that we can suspend our belief that we are only listening to a hi fi and feel more connected to actual music listening experiences," seems to me to be substantially the same as Objective 4) "create a sound that seems live."

___________________________________________________________

*Jonathan Valin uses this framework of objectives:

1) transparency to sources (or “accuracy-first”)

2) “as you like it” (or “musicality-first”)

3) “the absolute sound” ("search for those recordings and components that best preserve the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space")

See https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/magico-m3-loudspeaker

Jonathan's "transparency to sources" is substantially the same as my "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

His “as you like it” is the same as my "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile."

His “the absolute sound” is substantially the same as my "create a sound that seems live."

I personally think our WBF framework untangles things helpfully by disaggregating the "absolute sound" into "recreate the sound of an original musical event" and "create a sound that seems live." I think our topology is more specific and easier to understand.

 

[Robh3606]

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

Of course people can quibble with these objectives, and how they are described. But I think that this list truly has explanatory power. I believe that this framework is an advancement from Jonathan Valin's attempt at the same question.* Audiophiles, when describing what they want from their audio systems, often say or write things which track closely one of these objectives.

In Karen Sumner's wonderful essay, "A Gold Standard for Listening Evaluations," she described a beginning principle as: "come as close as possible to revealing accurately all the information that is embedded on the source material. Karen then described a later principle as: "create a system that gets out of the way of the music so that we can suspend our belief that we are only listening to a hi fi and feel more connected to actual music listening experiences."

Hello Ron

I can agree with 2,3 and 4. Number 1 is simply not going to happen ever. You may get close enough where you get emotionally involved and forget where you are for a moment but that's fleeting?? Not sure of the spelling, and it all comes crashing down back to reality in your listening room. But it sure is fun trying to get there.

Rob

 

[thedudeabides]

No need to further elaborate, it's quite self explanatory and my other posts here say everything needed about the topic. It's just plain common sense (selecting the right speaker for your room and amp for the speakers included).

Everything we need to know? You are funny.

 

[Bergm@nn]

I think its helpful to distinguish the qualities and outcomes you're looking for when listening to music at home, from the means and method of doing so.

If I've learned anything from this hobby its that there is more than one way to achieve what you are looking for; and the natural tendency to narrow down options and thinking too soon can artificially and unhelpfully blinker you to one path at the expense of other options.

So I guess I find the specifying of the means/ method that @marmota described up thread a bit flawed/ counterintuitive, but each to their own path etc.

Others have articulated this better but what I think I'm looking for from my own own stereo is an effortless portrayal of music with believable sonic images and tone. Good dynamics and a reasonable soundstage that fools me into thinking the instruments are being played in the room to some extent.

Its always going to be somewhat flawed due to the fact that most recordings are mixed and produced so what you hear is a contrived product rather than the sound of band in a space - I know there's exceptions etc. Within this compromise I still expect the sound to be 'believable' to a large extent.

Also another good marker for me is lack of fatigue when listening for long periods. Any system that sounds exciting but has to be switched off after a couple of hours isn't what I'm looking for.

 

[bonzo75]

Jonathan's "transparency to sources" is substantially the same as my "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

His “as you like it” is the same as my "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile."

His “the absolute sound” is substantially the same as my "create a sound that seems live."

Where I disagree is that transparency to source will make the sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile with good recordings and gear. It is not like G spends his time listening to mp3 or reissues that he needs lack of transparency to sources to make it pleasing. If you are listening to compressed prog music records then yes, you would rather sacrifice that transparency for a pleasant sound consistent across recordings

Also, if you have good classical records and transparency to sources, you are getting the feel of a live event, so that's the absolute sound.

So depending on your level of recordings and system you either have these three as separate or they roll up into one

 

[tima]

I think this is a very interesting question, Tim. Thank you for starting this thread.

I think this is an important question -- a threshold question. If one does not know what one wants (what I call one's "objective") how can one plan, with research and listening experiences, to get to the goal?

There are different ways to describe what we want from our audio systems (in my parlance, there are different possible objectives of high-end audio).

Here is the framework of possible objectives a group of us on WBF developed in 2016:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

Thanks Ron. While you and I come at this from slightly different angles, I believe we agree generally on approach and importance for guiding assesment and setting direction.

As regards your #1, it is not a consideration, imo, if one literally means recreating the sound of an original music event. Reality and reproduction are not the same and while maybe some future technology might make them indistinguishable, as of today identity is not possible. Now if #1 was modified to something like "sound similar to an original event" or "be judged against the sound of the original event" that eases up on identity, although ilt is highly unlikely that one has a clue about the original event unless they were there.

As for #2, it is a very interesting idea although I question how we would know exactly what is on the source material. Hypothetically if there was a way to assure that everything on a recording is reproduced, it is possible that two systems could do that yet sound different from one another. I don't see that as a problem because the goal is achieved and thus possible as a goal - but it's not.

#3 certainly is a viable goal.

#4 is a viable goal - similar to a less stringent #1 that doesn't require an original event. I put this differently and talk in terms of using the sound of live acoustic music as my reference. It poses some difficulty for music created by programming or solely in a studio - we have no reference gauging how those should sound.

So for those wondering what they want, or willing to admit they don't have a clue about what they want, ask yourself do you have a method for figuring that out. What Ron and I are talking about is a framework for figuring out what you want if you have no method of your own.

I suggest two considerations:
i) expose yourself to a wide variety of systems and sounds. And be willing to experiment with what you have to learn different ways your gear can deliver different sound. This is not so much about choosing equipment but learning what different types of sound different types of equipment can deliver. What is available may be a function of where you live. Be patient with yourself and acknowledge what you do not know, keep an open mind but also know your choices are not etched in stone.
ii) ask yourself if are willing to be guided by a reference - that is something relatively stable against which you can compare and assess. If you want to be your own reference consider how or if your preferences change over time. Do you want your stereo to deliver music sounding like it does when it is performed or do you want your music to sound like some imaginary ideal in your head or in some way 'sounds better' than a performance - there is no right answer.

 

[tima]

Where I disagree is that if the sources are good, transparency to sources will make the sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile. It is not like G spends his time listening to mp3 or reissues that he needs lack of transparency to sources to make it pleasing. If you are listening to compressed prog music records then yes, you would rather sacrifice that transparency for a pleasant sound consistent across recordings

Also, if you have good classical records and transparency to sources, you are getting the feel of a live event, so that's the absolute sound.

So depending on your level of recordings and system you either have these three as separate or they roll up into one

Okay - I kinda agree with your idea but there's a bit of chicken and a bit of egg here. "If the sources are good" is partly a function of the level of transparency one can achieve with a certain set of gear. Can you tell if 'a sorce is good' on any system?

Does sorting this out help us understand what we want from our audo systems?

 

[bonzo75]

Okay - I kinda agree with your idea but there's a bit of chicken and a bit of egg here. "If the sources are good" is partly a function of the level of transparency one can achieve with a certain set of gear. Can you tell if 'a sorce is good' on any system?

Does sorting this out help us understand what we want from our audo systems?

I reworded that a bit to clarify. But yes I am saying if you get the transparency to source you will achieve all three objectives with good recordings

 

[Gregm]

I reworded that a bit to clarify. But yes I am saying if you get the transparency to source you will achieve all three objectives with good recordings

Transparency to the source: isn't that Ron's No2?

 

[bonzo75]

Transparency to the source: isn't that Ron's No2?

I am saying it need not be a separate stand alone, by achieving that objective you are achieving more than one

 

[Amir]

0- High end is not easy so if your IQ is under 140 and if you are not young then please forget high end audio and start another hobby (just kidding ))
1- Read www.goodsoundclub.com , read Jim smith book (get better sound), Call David (@ddk) and visit him in Utah, do not read stereophile and TAS and 6moon and ...
2- Expose yourself to a wide variety of systems and sounds and do not care about the sound and just try to understand what you really enjoy in long listening term (the reaction to music is important not the reaction to sound).
3- try to learn how each parameter affects on the sound

 

[bryans]

1- Read www.goodsoundclub.com , read Jim smith book (get better sound), Call David (@ddk) and visit him in Utah, do not read stereophile and TAS and 6moon and ...

How can you say don't ready Stereophile, TAS 6Moon and not include forums?

I hope you don't believe everything you read on forums.

 

[Ron Resnick]

2- Expose yourself to a wide variety of systems and sounds and do not care about the sound and just try to understand what you really enjoy in long listening term (the reaction to music is important not the reaction to sound).

+1

 

[PeterA]

How can you say don't ready Stereophile, TAS 6Moon and not include forums?

I hope you don't believe everything you read on forums.

Great observation. Audio forums are ideally chat rooms for hobbyists who share ideas, experiences, and different points of view. In this sense they are quite different from Industry magazines supported by advertising with editorial control. However these days, some forums look increasingly like some magazines.

 

[Another Johnson]

In 1964 my goal for this hobby was to get something closer to live than could be obtained with a transistor radio.

You could get a pretty nice system based on an RTR deck, speakers and receiver (total cost of waaaaay less than a grand). And it clearly sounded a LOT more like live than the transistor radio. FWIW, $1000 was about 10% of a decent annual professional salary at that time.

If I’d had a crystal ball, and could have foreseen that pursuing the (as yet undefined) audiophile path would lead to literally $250k worth of gear in a dedicated listening room, I’d have turned my back on the absurdity.

Yet here I am. And I do listen intently for a few hours every day that I can. 30+ hours per week is typical. So my investment in music and gear has not been wasted … it is the major focus of my entertainment.

What do I seek? I seek to be delighted. I am delighted by detail, both subtle and stark. I am delighted by clear separation of musical layers that are present due to miking and mastering choices. I am delighted by the presentation of a clear image that allows the speakers to disappear. Of course none of this stuff is important, or even interesting, if the musical program itself is not emotionally pleasing.

In the evolution of my systems, I’ve always been an opportunist, ready to audition things that presented themselves as available to me. Price and proximity have both been important in choosing what to try. I don’t really trust evaluations unless they’re my own, done in a system (including room) that is familiar to me.
I’ve reached “nirvana” with many systems over the last four decades of participating as an audiophile. For me, Audio Nirvana is a system that presents no clear obstacle to my enjoyment of music.

I seek the emotion of being delighted when I sit down to listen. Different strokes for different folks has never been more applicable.

 

[Amir]

How can you say don't ready Stereophile, TAS 6Moon and not include forums?

I hope you don't believe everything you read on forums.

High end forums are different to audio magazines and you can read different ideas/experience in forums .
I think high end Forums can help us if we find expert audiophiles there and try to learn from them.

again I should say I am not expert and I just try to learn .

 

[Rensselaer]

1. Me as an individual:
I'm relatively young at 30 years old, 95% of the music I listen is not on vinyl or tapes. If I buy a turntable or a tape machine, it would be for a minor amount of music that I can also listen digitally, so it would be a huge investment for a better experience of a very small % of music enjoyment. As such, only source will be DAC until I have boatloads of money to buy a top analog rig (no need for a mid-fi anything, life is too short and good to waste with mid tier stuff). I like colorful but linear and resolving sources, like the Rockna Wavedream DAC.

2. Coherence:
speaker has to have all drivers made of the same materials and type of construction. All cones. Must be a 2 way with a filler driver, with driver sizes preferably being 15', 8' and waveguided 1'6 cone tweeter taking into account that the speaker only has 3 drivers. Passive filter must be phase coherent and speaker must produce perfect impulse response. Passive filters must be 2 cascaded 1st order for woofer and tweeter, and none for midrange which should have "built in" 1st order roll off at both ends, baffle step compensation taken into account. Crossover parts must be all of the same materials and construction. All drivers must be loaded the same, with a sealed transmission line carved in multiple translaminated wood panels being the best possible method (custom molds being terribly expensive unless planing to start a speaker company with prospect to sell 100+ pairs of speakers, which is not the case with me). Speakers must be decoupled from the floor with a proper method, such as Boenicke swing bases. Room must have at least 2x PSI active bass traps and be of proper dimensions. Impedance must be linear due to drivers having a second voice coil that counteracts impedance peak, like 18sounds "AIC", not because of extra crossover parts. Impedance must be 16 ohms flat and efficiency over true 90db 1 watt.

3. Headroom:
10' is the mininum size for a "bass" driver, anything less is a midrange driver. A small speaker is not a good speaker, because it doesn't have headroom or plays well at low volumes. It doesn't have efficiency to play with good sounding amps either. In my opinion, small speakers are ok for desktop listening and discovering music with Youtube, not for true high end audio.

4. Lack of molesting artifacts:
smooth but not dull treble, linear midrange and bass. Proper micro and macro dynamics, due to drivers being efficient, well behaved and using good sounding materials, such as paper or hemp, coupled with good sounding magnet materials (alnico, neodymium and various field coils).

5. The ability to properly convey tonal colors:
due to all the characteristics mentioned above, the speaker can be used with good sounding, properly built pure class A amplification. 20 watts of pure class A1 being optimal, something like a custom Sakuma style GM70/GM70 with full custom finemet transformers and chokes would be ideal. Preamp must be as minimalistic as possible, a passive autoformer volume control built into the amp being preferred.

6. Conceptual coherence with regards to cabling:
cables must have custom connectors made of the same materials as the conductors, non negotiable. Equipment's connectors must be custom made out of the same materials as the cable's connectors too. Same for wall AC outlets. All of this for maximum performance.

7. Imagination is the only valid standard:
I couldn't care less about what reviewer a or b thinks or what next equipment piece is the "best", I have an imagined sound in my mind that my future speaker setup must reproduce. I've made a thread about it called "Do you have a dream sound in mind", on which people replied that they didn't, they just bought equipment, listened, bought new equipment, listened...repeat cycle. That results in chasing the next best thing instead of self education and discovering what is your ideal sound and what it takes to achieve it. Imagination is the biggest standard and it must be met or exceeded by the equipment, not backwards where the sound is only experience without imagination and direction of any future endeavors. Influence from inside you must be bigger than influence from outside you (reviewers, forum members, etc). Describing things as "real" and "natural" doesn't count either, it's like wow you got the sound you wanted in exchange of forgetting how to describe sound. Such pedestrian descriptions are not useful for anyone.

These are my observations of what I want for my personal audio system and why I think that way, please don't take them as gospel, they are just my desires and my opinion.

Marmota, I am worried about something you point out in your number 1 point; specifically: "I am 30 years old,... 95% of the music I listen to is not on vinyl" (or tape), followed by 5.; you desire a class A1 amplifier of 20 watts/channel which has the "ability to properly convey tonal colors".

I started in the 1960's buying the required LPs of my generation (Beatles, Doors, Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin, etc.,) just to play them on my parents' stereo console (from Sears and Roebuck ). It sounded mediocre at best, but I had the correct LPs for street cred all the same. When CD came, I was astonished by the clarity and ease of changing tracks. I bought a Sony portable and some Sennheiser headphones and was in heaven. Something about listening to those CDs though that I never experienced listening to LPs, something some refer to as "listener fatigue". Something in the sound from those caused irritation, I could only listen for so long before needing to turn it off. Probably the Sony rig,...I need a better CD player. So I read the magazines and found one that looked good ("bats high beyond it's price point") and bought it. Eh... didn't help.

I then went through many "upgrades" trying to get music that I could relax and enjoy listening to. One day, I walked into a shop selling old speaker cones, valves, variable resistors, console radios, etc. in Portland, Oregon. I heard music playing in the shop but as I turned and looked at each speaker I could not discern from which the music was coming from. It was the first time I ever experienced speakers disappearing. The tonal colours were great too. Sounded like real musical instruments and not just a facsimile . I struck up a conversation with the shop owner and he pointed to some old paper cone JVC speakers hanging on chains as being the speakers making the music, and an old 5 watt valved Loften White amplifier he liberated from a movie theatre they were tearing down as the amplification. I was amazed, he could see it too, so he invited me to join a group of like minded people who met once a month at a high fi shop in Lake Oswego. They called themselves "The Oregon Triode Society".

What I learned from that group was that they were following on the heels of some Japanese Hi Fi freaks who learned that "hi fi" hadn't really improved much from the early "golden age". The small 7 watt (or less) triode amplifiers of those early years needed very large high-sensitivity horn speakers to give realistic sound levels. People didn't want huge horn speakers in their homes, so smaller less efficient speakers were made, requiring more power to drive them to realistic sound levels. At first, push pull, double the triodes, split the signal, run half through each amplifier then put it back together again. Seems that does something to the sound, doesn't sound as good. Then transistors. Get rid of the valves and pile in the transistors. More power and less weight. With LP and tape they sounded ok, not so much with CD, but with small speakers, no deep bass. Then sub-woofers...no music is no longer seamless, doesn't sound real, but goes real deep.

While Sony, Yamaha, Toshiba, Nakamichi, etc. were selling Americans mini-stack systems with 300 watts power and 0.0001% THD, these Japanese audio freaks were buying old Altec Voice of the Theatre speakers, and their little 5 watt valve amplifiers and rebuilding them at home with the best parts. 99.9999% pure silver wire drawn through a heated die to ensure no cracks (single seed), coated with cotton and baked in oil to insulate and protect from oxygenation without causing capacitance. Etc. Parts (valves, capacitors, resistors) were swapped in and out until the correct sound occurred. Some of the most famous Japanese makes today (Kondo, Shindo, Air Tight, etc.) started out this way.

 

[Rensselaer]

more...

I have finally put together a system similar to what they espoused (not the same as I do not know how to design my own amplifiers or phono-stage so have to buy respected makes of the same ilk), and it does everything that you delineated in your numbered specifications except 1. Well recorded pure analogue LPs like those produced by The Electric Recording Co., fone, Analogue Productions and Classic Records sound great on my system, whereas those LPs where a digital file is mastered from the tape and that used to make the pressings thereafter (like nearly every LP made after digital came into being) sound like shit (no life, not relaxing, incorrect tonal colours, harsh).

My nephew comes 'round to listen to records on my system when in the area, showing plenty of admiration and homage (he wants to inherit the works), but, being young (but older than you) he did not grow up with the recorded music I have on LP (pre-1980). Sony has bought up the rights (and master tapes) of many a great performance, but will not lease them to anyone wishing to re-release. They will lease a digital file that they mastered of the original analogue tape, but not the analogue tape itself. My cynicism makes me think that the inventor of the CD is trying to eliminate any format that outperforms their CD product for financial reasons, and in so doing make LP playback like mine, a soon to be extinct experience. The only way out of this for you is to develop a taste for classical music, old jazz and 60's pop/rock, as you will never see the music you grew up listening to recorded in pure analogue and pressed from/to pure analogue unless the Electric Recording Company somehow gets their hands on a tape (if one exists and hasn't been bought by Sony), and decides to make a run of the usual 300 LPs only, and you get one.

 

[JackD201]

Calm mainly. It's hard to figure yourself out when you aren't in some state of calm right? We could make a checklist of attributes, actually get to check all the boxes but still feel unconnected to the presentation. Then we can get hit by a thunderbolt only to find later all the electricity is gone. We've all been through this. Ultimately, as far as I am concerned, I eventually came to the conclusion that what gets and keeps my attention towards musical fulfillment is coherence. I found that I am particularly distracted by temporal discontinuities. They sound and look like wrinkles to me as I am a synesthete.

Anyway, I got to get around the block a few times like everybody else here and did so in what I would describe as curious calmness. There is a lot of good that came with not having any pressure to make any conclusions and just going on with making note of the impressions that a listening session would elicit. Over time these were and continue to be internalized and shape my tastes.

When eventually I had the means to aim higher, the need for coherence evolved into chasing the feeling of live not live itself and there is a big difference I will probably very feebly explain. Live is Live. It is by nature coherent because it isn't chopped up to begin with. We are faced by pressure fronts felt on the body on top of the sound we hear through our ears. I've found that you can find success in either without too much expense or difficulty but getting both within spitting range of each other is much more demanding and still doesn't get me to even claim I'm doing the concert hall thing. The stadium thing, a bit easier. Studio recordings are what they are. No monkey on my shoulder there. What I do get is, recording permitting, music that sounds and feels good. A point where what I hear is in sensual synch with the vibrations I pick up through my skin and where I am physically connected by gravity to the environment without playing "loud". Basically I'm doing the "Maggie" wave launch thing but with Cones and Domes while sacrificing as little in the way of coherence as we add extension and dynamics. When it clicks its bliss.

What I do believe is that there are many ways to skin this cat. I am pretty much agnostic as to how to get there. I have heard 2 horn systems that do the trick, both of them multi-amped with SETs. Big planars, OBs, Big Boxies, Tubes, SS. It's more about balance as opposed to absolutes as far as I am concerned. My path was also partially dictated by constraints that favored one over another, sometimes in ways not connected with sound at all like temperature, the humidity here in the tropics, etc, etc.

Ultimately it is my system and it exists to play the music collection that I have been curating for decades in a way that pleases me. I know full well that we all have different hot buttons. These are just mine and that's how they came to be,

 

[marmota]

Marmota, I am worried about something you point out in your number 1 point; specifically: "I am 30 years old,... 95% of the music I listen to is not on vinyl" (or tape), followed by 5.; you desire a class A1 amplifier of 20 watts/channel which has the "ability to properly convey tonal colors".

I started in the 1960's buying the required LPs of my generation (Beatles, Doors, Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin, etc.,) just to play them on my parents' stereo console (from Sears and Roebuck ). It sounded mediocre at best, but I had the correct LPs for street cred all the same. When CD came, I was astonished by the clarity and ease of changing tracks. I bought a Sony portable and some Sennheiser headphones and was in heaven. Something about listening to those CDs though that I never experienced listening to LPs, something some refer to as "listener fatigue". Something in the sound from those caused irritation, I could only listen for so long before needing to turn it off. Probably the Sony rig,...I need a better CD player. So I read the magazines and found one that looked good ("bats high beyond it's price point") and bought it. Eh... didn't help.

I then went through many "upgrades" trying to get music that I could relax and enjoy listening to. One day, I walked into a shop selling old speaker cones, valves, variable resistors, console radios, etc. in Portland, Oregon. I heard music playing in the shop but as I turned and looked at each speaker I could not discern from which the music was coming from. It was the first time I ever experienced speakers disappearing. The tonal colours were great too. Sounded like real musical instruments and not just a facsimile . I struck up a conversation with the shop owner and he pointed to some old paper cone JVC speakers hanging on chains as being the speakers making the music, and an old 5 watt valved Loften White amplifier he liberated from a movie theatre they were tearing down as the amplification. I was amazed, he could see it too, so he invited me to join a group of like minded people who met once a month at a high fi shop in Lake Oswego. They called themselves "The Oregon Triode Society".

What I learned from that group was that they were following on the heels of some Japanese Hi Fi freaks who learned that "hi fi" hadn't really improved much from the early "golden age". The small 7 watt (or less) triode amplifiers of those early years needed very large high-sensitivity horn speakers to give realistic sound levels. People didn't want huge horn speakers in their homes, so smaller less efficient speakers were made, requiring more power to drive them to realistic sound levels. At first, push pull, double the triodes, split the signal, run half through each amplifier then put it back together again. Seems that does something to the sound, doesn't sound as good. Then transistors. Get rid of the valves and pile in the transistors. More power and less weight. With LP and tape they sounded ok, not so much with CD, but with small speakers, no deep bass. Then sub-woofers...no music is no longer seamless, doesn't sound real, but goes real deep.

While Sony, Yamaha, Toshiba, Nakamichi, etc. were selling Americans mini-stack systems with 300 watts power and 0.0001% THD, these Japanese audio freaks were buying old Altec Voice of the Theatre speakers, and their little 5 watt valve amplifiers and rebuilding them at home with the best parts. 99.9999% pure silver wire drawn through a heated die to ensure no cracks (single seed), coated with cotton and baked in oil to insulate and protect from oxygenation without causing capacitance. Etc. Parts (valves, capacitors, resistors) were swapped in and out until the correct sound occurred. Some of the most famous Japanese makes today (Kondo, Shindo, Air Tight, etc.) started out this way.

more...

I have finally put together a system similar to what they espoused (not the same as I do not know how to design my own amplifiers or phono-stage so have to buy respected makes of the same ilk), and it does everything that you delineated in your numbered specifications except 1. Well recorded pure analogue LPs like those produced by The Electric Recording Co., fone, Analogue Productions and Classic Records sound great on my system, whereas those LPs where a digital file is mastered from the tape and that used to make the pressings thereafter (like nearly every LP made after digital came into being) sound like shit (no life, not relaxing, incorrect tonal colours, harsh).

My nephew comes 'round to listen to records on my system when in the area, showing plenty of admiration and homage (he wants to inherit the works), but, being young (but older than you) he did not grow up with the recorded music I have on LP (pre-1980). Sony has bought up the rights (and master tapes) of many a great performance, but will not lease them to anyone wishing to re-release. They will lease a digital file that they mastered of the original analogue tape, but not the analogue tape itself. My cynicism makes me think that the inventor of the CD is trying to eliminate any format that outperforms their CD product for financial reasons, and in so doing make LP playback like mine, a soon to be extinct experience. The only way out of this for you is to develop a taste for classical music, old jazz and 60's pop/rock, as you will never see the music you grew up listening to recorded in pure analogue and pressed from/to pure analogue unless the Electric Recording Company somehow gets their hands on a tape (if one exists and hasn't been bought by Sony), and decides to make a run of the usual 300 LPs only, and you get one.

Thanks for sharing your journey with me!

IMO, you have to take two things into account:

1) Transformers > tubes.
The quality of the transformers and the topology used are way more important than the tubes. For example, GM70 tubes can make up to 32 watts in class A1, if you use them at 8 watts (or even 16 or 20w), driven with the same tube (or another very robust driver tube), they'll sound different and much more nuanced.
Same with transformers, if you put the GM70 (or 845, 211, any high power tube amp) with custom made transformers of the highest quality (Tribute or Monolith with finement cores or Slagle transformers with silver wire), the sound quality will be much better than any lower power tube (45, 2a3, 300b, etc) cap coupled or using mediocre quality transformers.

2) Digital sources have improved tremendously.
You need to do yourself a favor and listen to the top models from Rockna and Bricasti. Even some studio DACs sound very colorful, like the Burl B2. Good DAC > mediocre analog (and good analog > good DAC).

Of course I want to know more music and listen to older productions of different genres, but that's something acquired with time and with pleasure in the meantime, not a chore. In 10 years I may have a music collection that will justify a good turntable, now I don't have it.

Also, the ne plus ultra turntable setups, even used "vintage" equipment, is extremely expensive. A proper true high end phono stage, custom made for the cartridge, like the Vinylsavor D3A costs like 15k euros on it's most basic form. I'm not saying expensive=good, there's plenty of ridiculously priced mid-fi out there, but the truly good stuff that is a clear cut above is always very expensive.
A used Micro Seiki RX-5000 turntable is around 10k eur (and is not even a top of the line model)...you get the point, there's no reason for me to buy a GOOD analog setup until my music collection justifies it.

I wouldn't spent a single cent on a mid-fi (sound wise, not just price wise) analog setup.
I know that the good analog setups sound better than good digital, but those cost a huge amount of money and I prefer to wait a bit more, now I don't have the need for one.

TL;DR: good analog is better than good digital, but good digital is great. I'll buy an analog setup once I not only have the funds, but can justify one with a broader music collection.