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

[Tim Link]

What I originally wanted was to enrich my life with reproduced music in the home. What I've learned in my pursuit of more enrichment through higher fidelity is that there seems to be a point in the fidelity where it works in terms of getting me psychologically to the place where I want the music to take me, and the required fidelity isn't nearly as high as I had imagined in the beginning. Fidelity became a hobby in itself for me, with no particular goal in mind other than to discover what different things sounded like. I've learned what horns can do, steep slopes on active crossovers, 5 way vs 2 way speakers, multi-channel systems, crosstalk reduction schemes, cables, dacs, amps, etc. It's all been interesting but going back to the original goal of life enrichment through music reproduction in the home, I'm pretty much all the way there with a couple of decent low-end bookshelf speakers and a cheap AV receiver. For me, the message in the music is quite robust against playback issues. Hearing fine details, exquisite dynamics and naturalness and purity of tone and timing, those things are all fun and interesting and quite gratifying to achieve but actually add little to my enjoyment of the music. It's kind of like reading a story from a leather bound book that has really nice typesetting and high quality paper. It's nicer than reading the same story from a cheap paperback book, but it really doesn't add to the story.

So with this dualistic sense of musical enjoyment vs. sound quality, I know that I want my system to allow me to enjoy music, which is easy, but I also want it to please me with beautiful sound, which is also easy but not easy to maximize. What might please me most is always the question. I haven't heard all there is to hear. I have been for years very much pleased and fascinated by the effect of reducing inter-aural crosstalk while listening to stereo, so I'm exploring ways to maximize that in an optimal way, with minimal side effects and inconveniences. I have some ideas I'm excited to try out, and they will require some DIY work on my part. I get to craft things that can't be bought, and I enjoy dreaming up methods and bringing them to reality, so I guess that's another thing I get from audio.

 

[Tangram]

I haven’t read the entire thread so apologies if this observation is well-trodden ground. I have educated myself on what good sound is, as well as what to listen for when evaluating a system but the learning never stops. So this idea of “what do you want to get out of your system” is a movable feast. That’s why a seemingly simple question is actually quite complex, because it depends on each individual’s ability and willingness to learn.

 

[Gregadd]

Why should a top vinyl system sound better than a top digital system? Just because a few people say it loud?

BECAUSE I SAY IT LOUD!!!!!!!!!

 

[microstrip]

I just have to respond to the comment that the magazines are the best source of information. It’s not only a mirror who thinks they are not. Simply going somewhere to hear a component in a system is better information than reading something about it. I was responding to your claim. Surely that is allowed in the discussion thread.

Peter,

You are misreading the posts. I was addressing point 1 - written information or advice (not read ... ) , not listening sessions.

We will never have the time or opportunity to listen to everything in the high-end. Properly used magazines and high-end websites are the best way to know what exists and help making our minds. Most of us do not need audio gurus!

Some people who do not read magazines wrongly think that magazines are just reviews and reviews are just opinion son sound quality and comparisons ...

 

[tima]

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 JBL.

 

[tima]

No comments, as it will only lead to a 303930339 page long discussion about semantics, like the ones you had with DDK.

I know it is difficult but could we try to stay close to the thread topic.

How do you know what you want? What are your experiences figuring that out and have you figured it out? Do you feel sufficiently confident that you on your own can know what you want. ...

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

 

[Ron Resnick]

When I try to think back to my earliest exposure to, and experiences with, high-end audio I recall that I always had in my head the goal of "what makes it sound most like Stevie Nicks is standing in my room singing to me?" I've actually used this (admittedly kind of silly) touchstone along my entire audio journey.

I think I have not experienced a lot of the back-and-forth and the wrong turns a lot of audiophiles report. The "singer singing to me in my room" thing moved me to panel speakers very early on. It moved me from CD to vinyl. It also moved me from solid-state to tubes.

I think I've had a pretty linear path -- always trying to increase the believability of a live person singing to me in my room.

 

[Lagonda]

When I try to think back to my earliest exposure to, and experiences with, high-end audio I recall that I always had in my head the goal of "what makes it sound most like Stevie Nicks is standing in my room singing to me?" I've actually used this (admittedly kind of silly) touchstone along my entire audio journey.

I think I have not experienced a lot of the back-and-forth and the wrong turns a lot of audiophiles report. The "singer singing to me in my room" thing moved me to panel speakers very early on. It moved me from CD to vinyl. It also moved me from solid-state to tubes.

I think I've had a pretty linear path -- always trying to increase the believability of a live person singing to me in my room.

Funny, i just put a old Stevie Nicks LP on the TT, first track playing as i read your post Ron !

 

[Amir]

Sorry Peter does your post add anything new to Amir post and my reply?

Nice to know that you care about my posts and according to you there are three expert audiophiles in the world ...

I have described why audio press is useless here:

Audio Critique

I would like to share my idea about Right/Trusted Audio Critique in the High End Audio because Most Magazines need a better understanding of Audio Reviewing. I ask this question because me (when I was young) and my friends have spent many many times/efforts/money according to (and trusting)...

www.whatsbestforum.com

If you see any wrong thing in my reasons then please let me know and I will answer you.

What we need for a positive conversation is describing our reasons for our claims.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Funny, i just put a old Stevie Nicks LP on the TT, first track playing as i read your post Ron !

If you saw that in a movie you'd walk out! (meaning too contrived and heavy-handed)

 

[andromedaaudio]

Insteresting. Are you assuming positive reviews are pink noise and negative reviews are white noise?

I use this tool / meter mainly.
The shop i bought it from says i cant use it at audioshows however , because several meters got damaged already due to being constantly in overload.

 

[tima]

The title of the thread asks a question that each of us might answer differently. I think it’s pretty personal.

When I was starting out I read the main stream magazines in the audio press thinking I might find the answer to the question by reading these publications. I never did. I turned to live music and then knew what I wanted from my audio system.

As a member of the 'audio press' for nineteen years (yeeesh) I've come to believe audio publications and live music need not be mutually exclusive or off-setting from each other.

Nonetheless - while there are a variety of viewpoints amongst writers, historically the standards and values against which componentry are assessed and compared are not taken from live music. What you usually find are compare/contrasts between this years model and last years model -- component v. component -- v1 vs v2. And this is done in the terms of the audiophile vocabulary which is largely centered around sonic descriptions drawn from cloistered audio room listening, not from concert hall listening. I have contributed to this myself in my earlier writings.

I"ll speculate that some of this comes from the rather tired "that's the way we've always done it" perspective -- reviewers adopting the approach and vocabulary they've read from other reviewers going back to Holt and Pearson and repeated over and over on audio forums. Some of it comes from the belief that readers approach reviews in terms of "what should I buy" or "should I upgrade" rather than "what should I value." Relevant to this thread, "how do I know what I want" where the reader leaves it to the audio reviewer to answer that question for him.

Admittedly, many reviewers today don't get beyond a checklist of audiophile attributes. Nowadays, imo, many audiophiles come to describe what they want in terms of a set of characteristics and that set of characteristics is derived from what they hear reviewers use to describe a component. That's not bad or wrong but it never quite gets at the fundamental values that determine which characteristics are valued -- what I sometimes call the basis of preference. Without some notion of what one values it is challenging to come to grips with the question "how do I know what I want."

Okay, that was the exposition part, now comes the religion part and you can skip this if you like: my basis of preference is what I hear when I listen to live acoustic music. Sonic characteristics I value are drawn from that experience. It is possible to apply those ideals to evaluate what I hear from an audio system and use them when writing reviews for publication. If you find yourself dissociating from what you read in the audio press, find a different writer.

 

[paolo]

A very long time ago I assembled a 35 WPC Dynakit tube integrated and paired it with a Dual TT and smallish Bozak speakers. Since then I've had at least a dozen much "higher-end" systems. Most I've enjoyed to one degree or another. But even allowing for the fallibility of my aural memory- and taking into account that there might be some nostalgia at work- at this point in my journey I'd be quite happy to be able to recreate the sheer level of musical enjoyment and simplicity that that earliest of systems provided me.

Some might call it "devolving." Some might be less kind. Some might say I'm foolishly trying to regain the innocence of youth.

That's what I'm now looking for. I may not get there, but I'm pretty sure I'll know it if and when I hear it.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Insteresting. Are you assuming positive reviews are pink noise and negative reviews are white noise?

This threads tittle has nothing to do with either reviews or reviewers.

My audiosystem is exactly as i want it to be plus it hasnt cost me anything over the past 10 years.
My amps i can sell for basically the same price i bought them for .
My tapemachines are fully restored with certificate and have only appreciated in value.

 

[Rensselaer]

As a member of the 'audio press' for nineteen years (yeeesh) I've come to believe audio publications and live music need not be mutually exclusive or off-setting from each other.

Nonetheless - while there are a variety of viewpoints amongst writers, historically the standards and values against which componentry are assessed and compared are not taken from live music. What you usually find are compare/contrasts between this years model and last years model -- component v. component -- v1 vs v2. And this is done in the terms of the audiophile vocabulary which is largely centered around sonic descriptions drawn from cloistered audio room listening, not from concert hall listening. I have contributed to this myself in my earlier writings.

I"ll speculate that some of this comes from the rather tired "that's the way we've always done it" perspective -- reviewers adopting the approach and vocabulary they've read from other reviewers going back to Holt and Pearson and repeated over and over on audio forums. Some of it comes from the belief that readers approach reviews in terms of "what should I buy" or "should I upgrade" rather than "what should I value." Relevant to this thread, "how do I know what I want" where the reader leaves it to the audio reviewer to answer that question for him.

Admittedly, many reviewers today don't get beyond a checklist of audiophile attributes. Nowadays, imo, many audiophiles come to describe what they want in terms of a set of characteristics and that set of characteristics is derived from what they hear reviewers use to describe a component. That's not bad or wrong but it never quite gets at the fundamental values that determine which characteristics are valued -- what I sometimes call the basis of preference. Without some notion of what one values it is challenging to come to grips with the question "how do I know what I want."

Okay, that was the exposition part, now comes the religion part and you can skip this if you like: my basis of preference is what I hear when I listen to live acoustic music. Sonic characteristics I value are drawn from that experience. It is possible to apply those ideals to evaluate what I hear from an audio system and use them when writing reviews for publication. If you find yourself dissociating from what you read in the audio press, find a different writer.

The usual finding of repeated comparison/contrasts between this years model and last rings as obvious to me, but there is another obvious comparison/contrast activity (of at least one well-known reviewer from S........le) that drives me batty, that is comparing "measurements" and waterfall plots. In that I have never been able to predict what a piece of equipment will sound like based upon its measurements, I find that sort of often recorded information in reviews useless and misleading (though it may be of interest to a strange subset of audiophiles, accepting that such may exist, that get off on measurements, judging theirs and others equipment by how well they measure).

I don't want to limit this jab to just numbers, descriptors coming from measurements (or not) like; "soundstage", "bass slam", "accuracy", "frequency response", "noise floor" are also misleading as they do not say how close to real the tone of the clarinet played on x-equipment will sound to a real person in your room blowing over a reed, it vibrating and producing clear plump warm full-bodied tones from a carved ebony wood tube that eventually fill your room with lushness.

The other area where highly experienced reviewers are letting newbies down is they're not suggesting synergistic equipment for forming a listening system. Reviewers review individual components plugged into a collection of equipment the reviewer uses to evaluate equipment on. The collection may be the only review equipment the reviewer has, or (better) one of several with different needs to better match the piece to be reviewed, but well-known to the reviewer so that how close (or far) from sounding like the piece it replaces will pretty much spell out the review. If the piece reviewed sounds pretty close to the unit it replaces in the reviewers system, but costs 50% of what it replaces, the reviewer will no doubt say that it "performs well above its price point", or some equally un-useful accolade to the newbie trying to put together a great sounding system for a minimum of outlay. The newbie doesn't want to keep buying and selling stuff over a lifetime until they finally get a system together that sounds good if they don't have to. The biggest gift a reviewer can provide is to share their experience of a lifetime and cut out the chaff from the wheat. If you are evaluating a pair of speakers at a particular price point, with a specific impedance (and whether it is flat or not) and sensitivity, then you know what the competition is that the reader, spending at that level, can afford. Cut to the chase and tell him/her which speaker out there at that price point and those specifications will give him the best sound for the buck. Same amps, phono stage, cartridges, etc.

 

[Another Johnson]

In the early days of the subjectively reporting magazines, some of the British magazines provided suggestions on synergistic pairings. Maybe they still do.

My opinion is that the magazines, the equipment, and the music are different parts of the overall hobby. Different folks choose among these to define their own personal central focus.

With the measurements, the magazine referred to in the post above is just trying to be all things to all people. It’s as if Harry Pearson had decided to give Julian Hirsch a few pages of every review.

I’m not a noobie, and in fact I can’t even relate to the ear buds and Alexa generation, but I often find myself (based on my own value system and auditions) in disagreement with reviewers on both gear and recordings. I still read for the entertainment.

I miss guys like Ralph Spear who would let you have a useful audition in your own home.

I am beginning to value streaming because it allows you to literally audition recordings without buying them.

 

[rooze]

I know what I want based mostly on what I've heard from other systems over the years. While I could replicate a system's components easily enough I can't bring home another person's listening room. Having moved house quite a lot over the years and switched continents a couple of times, I've never gotten serious about building my own optimized listening space. So mostly I'm left frustrated, working around rooms with moderate to poor acoustic properties without the motivation to pump money into them.

 

[Lee]

What I originally wanted was to enrich my life with reproduced music in the home. What I've learned in my pursuit of more enrichment through higher fidelity is that there seems to be a point in the fidelity where it works in terms of getting me psychologically to the place where I want the music to take me, and the required fidelity isn't nearly as high as I had imagined in the beginning. Fidelity became a hobby in itself for me, with no particular goal in mind other than to discover what different things sounded like. I've learned what horns can do, steep slopes on active crossovers, 5 way vs 2 way speakers, multi-channel systems, crosstalk reduction schemes, cables, dacs, amps, etc. It's all been interesting but going back to the original goal of life enrichment through music reproduction in the home, I'm pretty much all the way there with a couple of decent low-end bookshelf speakers and a cheap AV receiver. For me, the message in the music is quite robust against playback issues. Hearing fine details, exquisite dynamics and naturalness and purity of tone and timing, those things are all fun and interesting and quite gratifying to achieve but actually add little to my enjoyment of the music. It's kind of like reading a story from a leather bound book that has really nice typesetting and high quality paper. It's nicer than reading the same story from a cheap paperback book, but it really doesn't add to the story.

So with this dualistic sense of musical enjoyment vs. sound quality, I know that I want my system to allow me to enjoy music, which is easy, but I also want it to please me with beautiful sound, which is also easy but not easy to maximize. What might please me most is always the question. I haven't heard all there is to hear. I have been for years very much pleased and fascinated by the effect of reducing inter-aural crosstalk while listening to stereo, so I'm exploring ways to maximize that in an optimal way, with minimal side effects and inconveniences. I have some ideas I'm excited to try out, and they will require some DIY work on my part. I get to craft things that can't be bought, and I enjoy dreaming up methods and bringing them to reality, so I guess that's another thing I get from audio.

Great post Tim but I actually differ a bit here. If the playback quality is excellent then that serves to draw me in for a more musically engaging experience. So honestly I feel a great system does enhance the music and adds ”to the story” in that way.

 

[Lee]

One other observation I have about my own journey…since I also do live recording. In an acoustic performance, resolution and instrument timbre are very important qualities. With the finest resolution gear, we get the detail often associated with the term but also enhanced musicality. In other words, the gear is letting more of the recorded event flow through. With timbre we are hearing the proper tone of the instruments. Harmonic structure plays in here too. Over time, these dimensions have become increasingly important to me.

Soundstaging, LF extension, pace, dynamics, etc. are also important but resolution and timbre are my biggies.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Great post Tim but I actually differ a bit here. If the playback quality is excellent then that serves to draw me in for a more musically engaging experience. So honestly I feel a great system does enhance the music and adds ”to the story” in that way.

I agree with this directionally. But I think I apply a fairly high threshold to believability, musical engagement and emotional connection. For me, firing up the big stereo is a minor event.

A very modest system with two small, mid-fi speakers on a table is just not going to be believable enough for me to make an evening of listening to music in front of the stereo, or to invite friends over for a listening session.

I have never had a problem admitting that, for me, it is not "all about the music." If the believability and musical engagement and emotional connection are not exceeding a certain threshold, I'm just not going to bother.