Ron’s New System

[Al M.]

Very True , having no system is the best way to learn , you’re proof of concept ..

.

If you have no system, you don't learn about system set-up, which is half the search for good sound (room treatment, speaker positioning, ancillary things like platforms, cables etc.).

If you have never physically laid hands on the experience and considerable effort how to go from ok/good sound to great sound with the exact same basic components (perhaps also enhanced in the process with ancillary components) you have not really fully experienced what this hobby is about.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I prefer to think about it like an Italian dinner, get the best possible ingredients and keep it relatively simple. Nothing like a really good Caprese…just tomatoes, mozzarella, basilikum olive oil, balsamico, and maybe some sal and pepper. Everything has to be top quality and then it’s heavenly. Average ingredients makes for a “meh” outcome with such simple recipes.

Funny you mention caprese, as it is one of the only two things I know how to cook. (I loathe the kitchen.)

 

[Ron Resnick]

You seem to have an allergy to ancillary components. I don't know how you will get there with only the big boxes. Maybe you will get lucky and find the perfect combination. Kinda like winning the lottery (which is what is needed to buy all the boxes and swap them around until you find the goldilocks combination).

It is interesting to me that we seem to have different views on this.

I may be right, or I may be wrong (I never have a problem with discovering or learning that I am wrong) but here is what is behind my thinking: I associate ancillary components and tweaks with furthering or implementing the audiophile sonic objectives of maximizing detail, maximizing resolution, minimizing noise floor, maximizing black background, maximizing delineation of sonic images, maximizing frequency extension and maximizing neutrality. I don't consider these objectives to be consistent with what I personally value in sound reproduction.

If one of these ancillary components or tweaks made Stevie Nicks sound more real or alive in my room, then I would be happy to change my mind and keep that ancillary component. Of course I agree that there are lots of ways to change the sound of one's system, but I care only about a change that increases on a net basis, and, preferably, on a Pareto Improvement basis, my emotional engagement.

From my admittedly limited experience in my own system and in friends' systems with ancillary components and tweaks I have not heard ancillary components and tweaks to increase on a net basis organic-ness or naturalness of the sound or to increase my suspension of disbelief.* I have heard them increase sonic contrast, achieve blacker backgrounds, increase the delineation of sonic images, and alter frequency balance. But none of these results are things I personally care about for my own system.

Todd, I wonder if we just have different high-end audio objectives? Possibly your objective is: 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played," while my objectives are: 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event," and 4) "create a sound that seems live."

*One of my two or three favorite systems of all time uses a Scherzinger, but the owner did not take it in and out of the system for an A/B comparison. Separately, I did not like what an Equi-Tech or a PS Audio P10 did to the sound of a certain system.

 

[Atmasphere]

From my admittedly limited experience in my own system and in friends' system with ancillary components and tweaks I have not heard them to increase on a net basis organic-ness or naturalness or suspension of disbelief. I have heard them increase sonic contrast, achieve blacker backgrounds, increase the delineation of sonic images, and alter frequency balance. But none of these results are things I personally care about.

What if you get that aliveness/suspension of disbelief along with all those other things?

 

[Ron Resnick]

What if you get that aliveness/suspension of disbelief along with all those other things?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I don't look for a change (like many audiophiles do). I don't look for an improvement (like many audiophiles do). I look for an improvement on a net basis. I really look for Pareto improvements.

The failure to think of things on the critical net basis or on the Pareto Improvement basis is why many audiophiles make a change in their system, say "Eureka, I like that!" but then weeks or months later they take it out because they didn't realize initially that something else was lost. They didn't achieve an improvement on at least a net basis.

 

[bonzo75]

agree. as a music loving audiophile there are periods of learning during the enjoying, but if you view our hobby mostly as an academic learning and discussing/debating exercise as the main focus i view that is an extreme subset of how things should go. i listen, then listen some more, and then even more. it's my thing to do to reach the mental state i crave.

not having a system so not getting my 'fix' easily when i want would not work for me at all. YMMV.

of course, over 25 years of my hifi-internet activity i've done plenty of learning and discussing, so it is something i value and enjoy too, but it's never been 'THEE' thing, even though my time doing it has been mostly a joy too.


your thinking starts and ends with your personal goals for the hobby experience. taking shots at others for having different goals misses what hobbies are about. but hits the mark for science.

when gear hit's the mark in music reproduction performance there is no negative to being at peace to just enjoy and not to keep pushing further. even though the hunger to want better never goes away.

i am glad/thankful that we have the Ked's who value learning and analysis above all else and push us all to dig deeper. but i would not want to be in a place where that was it. we need the newbie delight with new pretty boxes from brick and mortar dealers with 10 demo cuts they like to listen to who love their brands and are in lust. and also the jaded DIY horn and SET builders worshiping at the alter of tone, and all points in between. our common thing is passion for great sound and music in all shapes and sizes.

never thought i would need to even think about defending enjoyment as the goal.

I am not taking shots, I am pointing out learning. I never said anything about enjoyment. I picked you and tang out because you two are high spenders who were winning to move gear, yet if you can’t go through many items in all areas of the chain, who can?

 

[bonzo75]

Sorry, it seems you are not reading this forum and my posts.

Blame him?

 

[microstrip]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I don't look for a change (like many audiophiles do). I don't look for an improvement (like many audiophiles do). I look for an improvement on a net basis. I really look for Pareto Optimal improvements. (...)

The thread is becoming even more elaborate. How can we avoid discussing if Pareto Optimal improvements are possible in stereo sound reproduction?

 

[bonzo75]

For me, this hobby is primarily about enjoying, not learning. Learning is a byproduct of specific periods of searching, but it is certainly not the driving force for me.

Geekiness affects all hobbies, and this is clearly possibly the biggest OCD geeky hobby (for some it could be cars and bikes, but those who are into it and audio rate audio more on that front). It is the nature to keep investigating and ticking off. That's why people stay in. and they learn while OCDIng. Denying it is BS. Better to direct it to OCDing over vinyl recordings.

 

[bonzo75]

If you have no system, you don't learn about system set-up, which is half the search for good sound (room treatment, speaker positioning, ancillary things like platforms, cables etc.).

If you have never physically laid hands on the experience and considerable effort how to go from ok/good sound to great sound with the exact same basic components (perhaps also enhanced in the process with ancillary components) you have not really fully experienced what this hobby is about.

Actually you do, but you wouldn't know that since you spend all day getting epiphanies moving your speakers. i did that a lot with my MLs and Veritys, maybe for you that is learning, I understand it from your perspective and the perspective of those who liked your post.

You will be surprised how much you would learn from others set ups and helping other set up...wait..you wouldn't, because you will never experience it.

 

[Atmasphere]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I don't look for a change (like many audiophiles do). I don't look for an improvement (like many audiophiles do). I look for an improvement on a net basis. I really look for Pareto improvements.

The failure to think of things on the critical net basis or on the Pareto Improvement basis is why many audiophiles make a change in their system, say "Eureka, I like that!" but then weeks or months later they take it out because they didn't realize initially that something else was lost. They didn't achieve an improvement on at least a net basis.

FWIW your second paragraph has a contradictory aspect; you don't look for an improvement but you look for an improvement instead. Net basis or not its an improvement, regardless of what 'net basis' might mean unless you're referring to Mr. Pareto.

I think we could boil this down to 'improvement without tradeoffs'. Ultimately if you get it right the system is completely engaging and good recordings will have the sense of reality, such as a 'singer in the room'.

Some might say its the difference between a music lover and an audiophile but in my book the system needs to satisfy both without drawing attention to itself.

Another way of looking at this is in a system perspective that 'a rising tide raises all boats'. I can't think of any changes in my setup that had to be backed out a few months later. in every case (so far) when I've made a change, its the sort of thing I've found very satisfying with no reason to change out for years at a time. So I think we're on the same page??

 

[Al M.]

You will be surprised how much you would learn from others set ups and helping other set up...wait..you wouldn't, because you will never experience it.

That's exactly what I did, many times. But of course, being the self-proclaimed "expert" you are, you wouldn't know.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I am not taking shots, I am pointing out learning.

here is what you said....

>>>>>Having a system impedes learning. Too much focus on very few components.<<<<<

how is that not taking shots? you are denigrating the value of owning a system and the value of personal end game gear. both concepts of which are valid personal choices but to generalize as not the 'right' way, not fair.

I never said anything about enjoyment.

you prioritized learning as most important. i view enjoyment as essential. not learning.

I picked you and tang out because you two are high spenders who were winning to move gear, yet if you can’t go through many items in all areas of the chain, who can?

some can.....mostly. but it depends on who is judging the efforts.

hard to define comprehensive as there are an infinite number of aspects of music reproduction enjoyment. but i feel i have touched as many areas of improvement for this hobby as anyone. not that i'm unique in that way. but way above the point of diminished returns.

 

[bonzo75]

That's exactly what I did, many times. But of course, being the self-proclaimed "expert" you are, you wouldn't know.

What the two systems you visit in Boston or Ron’s system which after you liked he changed the next week? And the ones you review with digital?

 

[bonzo75]

here is what you said....

>>>>>Having a system impedes learning. Too much focus on very few components.<<<<<

how is that not taking shots? you are denigrating the value of owning a system and the value of personal end game gear. both concepts of which are valid personal choices but to generalize as not the 'right' way, not fair.

You view that as denigrating. I was making a point on learning to a post on learning. I stand by that statement. You will be the first to about your learning is high on analog not on sets and horns or many other areas you didn’t experiment in. You are just taking a statement and viewing that as denigrating when it is not

 

[PeterA]

Geekiness affects all hobbies, and this is clearly possibly the biggest OCD geeky hobby (for some it could be cars and bikes, but those who are into it and audio rate audio more on that front). It is the nature to keep investigating and ticking off. That's why people stay in. and they learn while OCDIng. Denying it is BS. Better to direct it to OCDing over vinyl recordings.

You make a very general point about your impression of the hobby. Your post is a strange response to my explanation about what drives me in this hobby.

 

[Kingrex]

I just listen to test tones now. That way my learning is not distracted by the music.

 

[Lagonda]

I just listen to test tones now. That way my learning is not distracted by the music.

The microbot way !

 

[Argonaut]

You make a very general point about your impression of the hobby. Your post is a strange response to my explanation about what drives me in this hobby.

This thread Is not about *You* tho Is it ! … Your ‘Natural Sound ‘ thread not enough for you ?

 

[Ron Resnick]

FWIW your second paragraph has a contradictory aspect; you don't look for an improvement but you look for an improvement instead.

I'm sorry Ralph, but I do not understand this post. I am not seeing a contradiction.

1) singular improvement

2) improvement on a net basis

3) Pareto improvement

Where is the contradiction?