How to Assemble a High-End Audio System

[Kingrex]

. it makes we wonder what most think of me after they meet me lol. now I’m not asking for opinions nor want any.

I write this as I make plans to get a building for my Work yet it’s big enough to have a room 30/40
why I don’t know and the thought of doing it makes me nuts.

I have met Al. Owe boy. Haaaa. Love you bro.

Do you really need to focus on work? I though you were pretty set.
I personally would not build a room in a office space. I want my audio in my life. That is why its in my living room. 80% of my listening is casual. Its playing and I'm doing other things. Then there are moments I sit and really get into it. And at those times I wish I had a purpose built room. And I wish I could accommodate subs. I accept the limitation and focus on midrange magic that pleases me.

@Ron Resnick Maybe that is something you could digest and youtube about. Understanding what your willing to forgo and what is a priority. I forgo good bass. I'm not gong to have it in the space I am in. And aesthetics to some degree. I don't like the look of my speakers, but they present in a fashion I like at a price I could afford.

 

[the sound of Tao]

My system is a little of a mess at the moment. Speakers shoved back. A nebulous set of amps powering the speakers. Yet, I put on a 1st pressing of The Beatles Revolver last night. I was a bit shocked how engaged I became with the album. I was into almost every song. Especially She Said She Said. I played it 3 times.

I find the trios really engaging, especially when the amp has the right spirit and a good level of drive and headroom to make the 15 inch paper woofers sing… still for me it’s SET and I’m now a believer that (for me and the music I love) two way first order, horn OB and higher efficiency is a fantastic approach for the diverse kinds of music I get drawn to engage in. My next project gets back under way shortly though… I’ve been fully caught up in the music for the last year… I blame the gear… hmmm now where did that year go

 

[microstrip]

I have definitely crossed barriers in my own system. There does seem to be some levels. I have not had an opportunity to keep going up in levels as I don't have the resources I want to allocate that direction. But I have also sat in front of a $30K system in a decent room with very good power and a $250K system with a better room and very good power. Provided, these are different days. I would not say I heard a $220K difference in performance. There was a lot more that was very similar. There were some differences. One better bass. One a better sound stage. One maybe a touch higher resolution and clean.

We can exchange anonymous gear and rooms anecdotal experiences to support our experiences forever without any advance in the discussion. Can you describe the gear in the systems you refer?

 

[microstrip]

maybe we need to discuss what is detail and resolution

Yes, a system can sound very detailed and have low resolution. IMO in some aspects enjoyment is more connected to resolution than to details.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron thanks for your videos, they do come over well… they have a nice balance of warmth and you come across believably. In this one though I’m not sure I’m with you in terms of the content.

I don’t think detail (of itself) and emotional engagement are directly related qualities or they make up a duality as two ends of an opposite pole if that’s what you are seeing as the issue. I’d suggest that detail is not wrong in itself but only if it is in an inappropriate balance with the other aspects of the sound. Detail in proper balance is a valuable function of resolution and a system can display detail and very successfully allow for emotional engagement (as exampled by Ked with Bill’s setup).

I’d also add that it’s not the system that creates emotional engagement… that’s a quality in the performance of the music that does that. So systems can allow emotional engagement to happen if they let the music through properly in terms of it’s spirit and context but the emotional engagement is not being generated by the system, it’s a potential that’s present in the music and in the performance of the music.

The challenge is really in identifying what is the quality that is MIA in a system that creates an impasse in emotional engagement or a state of disengagement. It is not just a presence of detail that does that but I’d suggest that in big picture terms it’s a failure of synthesis… that the music itself doesn’t come together successfully or reflect the way emotional content existed in the performance.

So an imbalance of detail could be one of the things that can hold the music out of balance and create a failure of blend that triggers disengagement or more accurately just fails to engage. The magic is in the music, it’s an element of alchemy and music is genuinely greater than the sum of its parts… so if it comes to us fragmented it can’t reach its potential and falls apart in terms of the intended embodied experience of the music.

Lack of cohesion and the failure to bring the elements of the music’s sound back to musical wholeness creates a disparate confusion and an emotional disconnect. The issue with detail can be if detail exists out of balance with all the other qualities that make for the appropriate tone and timbre. Out of balance detail without appropriate tonal infill presents as unnaturally skeletal and then lacks the intended sonority. It also distracts and draws attention away from the proper whole body of the music.

I’d suggest the appropriate (right) levels of detail that fit the spirit and the context of the performance aid in the intended experience and the music’s potential for emotional engagement.

Thank you for the kind words!

I think you described everything here very well! I agree that the emotional engagement comes from the music, and the system must avoid blocking or adulterating that emotion from coming through.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Thank you for the kind words!

I think you described everything here very well! I agree that the emotional engagement comes from the music, and the system must avoid blocking or adulterating that emotion from coming through.

For me at least I find minimising complexity is the easier way to maintain cohesion (not the only way but definitely the easier way) and it’s cohesion that allows you to more fully perceive structure and form. I may be very cohesion sensitive as most designers I’ve met (or have taught) have been naturally and if they aren’t I use specific exercises that refine that ability because it’s essential for a designer to be able to create composition by being able to perceive balance, form and flow.

This kind of perception washes over into everything I do including music so musically while I love orchestration and love a great tune I’m even more so a complete balance and structure junkie. The mix of things that allow us to each switch off analysis and to just sit and receive and then perceive and feel are varying though.

 

[Kingrex]

We can exchange anonymous gear and rooms anecdotal experiences to support our experiences forever without any advance in the discussion. Can you describe the gear in the systems you refer?

No I won't. That leads to assumed #&$% on some name brand when I say a inexpensive system rivals a quarter million one.
Lets say they are both high power SS amps, both ported box 3 driver speakers and all digital.

 

[Rumpole]

The challenge is really in identifying what is the quality that is MIA in a system that creates an impasse in emotional engagement or a state of disengagement. It is not just a presence of detail that does that but I’d suggest that in big picture terms it’s a failure of synthesis… that the music itself doesn’t come together successfully or reflect the way emotional content existed in the performance.

Ron - thank you for doing these videos, and I'm looking forward to more videos and the discussions they prompt.

I think Tao's comment is important. One limitation of the short video format is that a focus on a specific aspect might make it difficult to synthesize how different aspects work together to create the feeling of the musicians being present in the room. So it would be interesting to hear how detail, resolution, imaging and sound stage all work together along with other aspects to create emotional engagement with the music. I would be willing to watch a longer video about synthesis and promise to keep the cyanide locked up in the medicine cabinet.

In any case, I appreciate the videos and hope you continue with them!

 

[microstrip]

No I won't. That leads to assumed #&$% on some name brand when I say a inexpensive system rivals a quarter million one.
Lets say they are both high power SS amps, both ported box 3 driver speakers and all digital.

No, it would lead that in YOUR opinion such system would rival the more expensive and we could exchange opinions on why. This is an hobby of preference, that easily explains such bombastic statements. Probably some one hating drinking wine will say that in his opinion a $1 beer rivals a $1k premium wine ...

IMO the high price / high performance gear is a logic consequence of the definition of high-end audio and audiophile education. Probably the best way to end with it would be to submit audiophiles to hazing and bastardization when they join the hobby! BTW, some audiophile schools of though and forums use blind testing to condition audiophiles when they join the hobby!

 

[microstrip]

(...) I think you described everything here very well! I agree that the emotional engagement comes from the music, and the system must avoid blocking or adulterating that emotion from coming through.

IMO it is more complex and challenging than you suggest. In the high-end the system must modify the signal in a way that it enhances the musical content that triggers our particular emotional responses.

Floyd Toole and othjer scholars just considered that freedom from artifacts was enough to avoid this blocking of emotion - and it s probably true for many listeners. But, again IMO most audiophiles want more than that.

 

[chuck]

I liked the jab at Boulder amp, YG speakers systems like the one I am listening to right now (3060/Sonja XV2). Have you ever heard one?

What detail do you think should be scrubbed from recordings? For example, it never occurred to me that Beethoven had too many instruments in his symphonies and always figured I should hear all of them, and the recording engineers seemed to think so too. Are there too many violins?

The Damon Von Schwiekert interview was similar. Damon was asked why VSA uses beryllium tweeters and ceramic drivers -- his answer, detail. Paper cone drivers and silk dome tweeters are too slow, have overhang and audible blurring. Ron plainly thought he was wrong, that blurring and overhang are features not bugs, they rid the sound of that pesky detail.

I disagree with the video. An audio system must get all the detail in the recording and convey the artist's intent. To quote Dr. David Robinson:

"I find joy in the audio thing itself. Give me truth, I'll deal with beauty. In my opinion, the ultimate height of the audio arts is to make the two become one. And in our best recordings, played back through our best systems, they are. Bring the audio event home by the original signal/recording (NOT "live music," that wrong headed audio chimera) " into my listening room and do not get in the way. That is what I am looking for." Positive Feedback, Issue 27.

 

[Alrainbow]

How much detail becomes a debate of what correct
but consider this question do we all hear the same
Do we each have a given expectation?
I’m a hyper detail person but to get there we should not sacrifice tone and timbre.
I dislike muddy colored sound even in my car but we all don’t agree to how much.
Ron’s videos some I love seem
Very real but to some extent they don’t capture all he hears there.
kedar has sent me some videos that were spectacular to me in any playback method but I’m guessing some may not like.
In short little is perfection for the masses.
tubes add something pleasant at the same time loose something to me.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I liked the jab at Boulder amp, YG speakers systems like the one I am listening to right now (3060/Sonja XV2). Have you ever heard one?

What detail do you think should be scrubbed from recordings? For example, it never occurred to me that Beethoven had too many instruments in his symphonies and always figured I should hear all of them, and the recording engineers seemed to think so too. Are there too many violins?
I disagree with the video. An audio system must get all the detail in the recording and convey the artist's intent.

I did not mean to upset you, Chuck!

I think I labored repetitively in the video to emphasize that there is no right or wrong on this question, and that I am describing only my own personal, subjective preference.

Also, please keep in mind that our differing opinions on this detail question is driven by our different high-end audio objectives. I believe you seek to 2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played, while I seek to 4) create a sound that seems live.

 

[Al M.]

I liked the jab at Boulder amp, YG speakers systems like the one I am listening to right now (3060/Sonja XV2). Have you ever heard one?

What detail do you think should be scrubbed from recordings? For example, it never occurred to me that Beethoven had too many instruments in his symphonies and always figured I should hear all of them, and the recording engineers seemed to think so too. Are there too many violins?

The Damon Von Schwiekert interview was similar. Damon was asked why VSA uses beryllium tweeters and ceramic drivers -- his answer, detail. Paper cone drivers and silk dome tweeters are too slow, have overhang and audible blurring. Ron plainly thought he was wrong, that blurring and overhang are features not bugs, they rid the sound of that pesky detail.

I disagree with the video. An audio system must get all the detail in the recording and convey the artist's intent. To quote Dr. David Robinson:

"I find joy in the audio thing itself. Give me truth, I'll deal with beauty. In my opinion, the ultimate height of the audio arts is to make the two become one. And in our best recordings, played back through our best systems, they are. Bring the audio event home by the original signal/recording (NOT "live music," that wrong headed audio chimera) " into my listening room and do not get in the way. That is what I am looking for." Positive Feedback, Issue 27.

For me detail is extremely important as well, and I agree you should hear all the instruments. Ironically and fortunately, Ron's system (which I have heard in person) presents separation of orchestral instruments as well as any that I have heard, and in some ways perhaps better so, thus I don't quite understand where he is coming from. In fact, detail in the presentation from Ron's system is spectacular.

I also found Ron's examples in his video unfortunate and, frankly, weird; I don't care about the conductor's fingers turning the pages either, nor about the mosquito biting someone's neck.

I also find timbral micro-detail extremely important. For example, without it, I don't find string quartet believable and it becomes emotionally less engaging. I want to hear all the nuances from the friction of the bow on the strings and from the resonances of the wooden bodies of the instruments.

The trick, however, is to extract and present detail from a recording in a natural way. It is easy to hype up detail in an "etched" way through frequency emphases and anomalies, exaggeration of transients, etc. It is much harder for a system to present detail within a full, weighty, substantial tone of instruments that is closer to the real thing.

For me, (natural) detail is not opposite to musical emotion, on the contrary, it is essential for conveying emotion.

At least, when I sit in front of a stereo; the musical experience during a car ride may differ.

And yes, in a live concert of unamplified music I want to hear all of it. One reason to get the best possible seats.

 

[Kingrex]

The problem with clarity or detail or some adjective of the sort is bumping up against edgy. I think most people when they hear "Good" detail or clarity appreciate it. But it can go sideways. Erroring to the safe side is, well safe. And the market of people who understand good detail or clarity is much smaller than the masses that are more into punch, solid controlled bass and dynamic slam. Yes, you can bump into hard and abrasive with punch and dynamics. There is a balance. Honestly, a good Class D like Atmasphere is a very safe bet. And very affordable. Its not wrong, and its not perfect. But its right in there with all around correct. Then you need the speaker. Gosh, where to begin. I have no idea how Ron is going to handle that.

 

[Kingrex]

Thinking about Rons video, he has to distinguish what his target audience is. Are they newbie that are getting a first system, or a enthusiast who has felt the bug and is itching to upgrade. Totally different path. I wound not even address the seasoned audiophile that has already turned over 3 or 4 DAC. That guy is already lost!!!!!!!

My comments at the beginning are more for the guy that is itching to upgrade and maybe changed a couple pieces and understands what can be heard. That person needs to dial in the foundation before moving on to better equipment.

 

[microstrip]

For me detail is extremely important as well, and I agree you should hear all the instruments. Ironically and fortunately, Ron's system (which I have heard in person) presents separation of orchestral instruments as well as any that I have heard, and in some ways perhaps better so, thus I don't quite understand where he is coming from. In fact, detail in the presentation from Ron's system is spectacular.

I also found Ron's examples in his video unfortunate and, frankly, weird; I don't care about the conductor's fingers turning the pages either, nor about the mosquito biting someone's neck.

I also find timbral micro-detail extremely important. For example, without it, I don't find string quartet believable and it becomes emotionally less engaging. I want to hear all the nuances from the friction of the bow on the strings and from the resonances of the wooden bodies of the instruments.

The trick, however, is to extract and present detail from a recording in a natural way. It is easy to hype up detail in an "etched" way through frequency emphases and anomalies, exaggeration of transients, etc. It is much harder for a system to present detail within a full, weighty, substantial tone of instruments that is closer to the real thing.

For me, (natural) detail is not opposite to musical emotion, on the contrary, it is essential for conveying emotion.

At least, when I sit in front of a stereo; the musical experience during a car ride may differ.

And yes, in a live concert of unamplified music I want to hear all of it. One reason to get the best possible seats.

Great post Al, M,

I would just add "And yes, in a live concert of unamplified music I want to hear and see all of it. One reason to get the best possible seats."

 

[Al M.]

Great post Al, M,

Thanks, Francisco.

I would just add "And yes, in a live concert of unamplified music I want to hear and see all of it. One reason to get the best possible seats."

"And see". Yes, you are right!

 

[Al M.]

Thinking about Rons video, he has to distinguish what his target audience is. Are they newbie that are getting a first system, or a enthusiast who has felt the bug and is itching to upgrade. Totally different path. I wound not even address the seasoned audiophile that has already turned over 3 or 4 DAC. That guy is already lost!!!!!!!

Only 3 or 4 DACs? In 33 years I have been through 8 CD players/DACs . But I have only been through two speaker amps.

 

[Kingrex]

Only 3 or 4 DACs? In 33 years I have been through 8 CD players/DACs . But I have only been through two speaker amps.

To me, Rons video are targeted to a new audiophile or one in it for 3 to 6 years and starting to investigate. If your in 33 year, the video are entertainment only.