System Builders vs. Audiophile "Chefs". Are they one of the same?

[caesar]

F. Toole once wrote that stereo reproduction is an individual experience, naturally this booby is most of the time an individual pursuit. Engineers can help a lot, but the ultimate judge are our ears, including our interpretation of the air vibrations produced by our systems.

Most audiophiles are happy people, really enjoying their hobby in all its aspects - music, system evolution and socialization. Unfortunately some people prefer to focus on the few frustrated audiophiles and spend their time on them. I always suggest that people should look at the Virtual Systems at Audiogon - many hundreds, perhaps thousands of systems of people who happily talk about them with other members.

I agree that most are happy people. After all, audio is an experience. As Winston Churchill said, we shape our buildings and then they shape us. Same with this hobby. We attend live music experiences that impact our references. We listen to others' systems that also impact our audio experiences. So its natural for is to swap gear. Some may see it as schizophrenic. And since no gear is perfect, it's a fun experience too.

But if you look at the psychology of acquiring audio gear (or acquiring anything in life, for that matter), people pretty much get used to material possessions very fast. Sure, we get a great emotional boost from a new piece of gear or a new sports car. But as time goes by, we get used to it and the excitement about it gets less and less. After 2 or 3 years, those “puddles of pleasure” dry up, and instead, we start noticing what may be wrong with our system…

With that said, I find people posting their systems very interesting. Looking at them it gets me want to ask a bunch of things like:

- What is your strategy of building a system?
- Do you deeply think through cause and effect of each move or let things evolve and gotten lucky?
- Have you made tactical moves in the short run that resulted in bad sound that were part of a more strategic view that ultimately resulted in great sound in the long run?
- Have your previous strategies held up as you evolved and experienced different types of music? If yes, how long have you held on to your system?
- Do you think deep thought is needed to build a system, or is it a bunch of bunk/ a sales pitch from the dealer or your acoustician as they are trying to con you out of your money, when in the end they are talking about personal taste ? (you just need this one last cable ...)
- Now that you have a killer system and look back, is there a clear and predictable way to build a system? Are there right and wrong things, other than the blatantly obvious, such as a set amp to drive your planar speaker or getting a speaker the size of your room? Or do you find that following others' predictable advice of what a great system is stifles your imagination of how components and wires will interact, and resulted in bad sound for you?

 

[JackD201]

I think that at this point in time I can look at specs and be sure what combinations will have promise and what combinations will crash and burn. At this stage I'm only looking at operability and not quality. At this point I can also walk around a room and tell where things will likely be placed within a few inches and have a general idea of how a loudspeaker would interact with the room.

Sound impressive? It's not. There is a HUGE gulf between what I can do in a snap and having the luxury of time to go all the way and achieve a sorted state. There have been many times when I've been saved by luck. Each time that adds another variable to add to the ever expanding punch list the next time around. I relish the learning experience. I relish the chance to solve the 3D electro-mechanical puzzle. I relish this as much as collecting and listening to the music. It's FUN!

I do think that each person should find his own comfort level in terms of technical involvement. I think of it like golf. You won't ever play a great round if you are constantly thinking about swing mechanics. If a person can't develop a switch in his head to toggle between the state of minds of work and play, I advise that they focus on play and leave the work to pros. It goes without saying that satisfaction must be demanded as it is for any service.

 

[RogerD]

With that said, I find people posting their systems very interesting. Looking at them it gets me want to ask a bunch of things like:

- What is your strategy of building a system?
- Do you deeply think through cause and effect of each move or let things evolve and gotten lucky?
- Have you made tactical moves in the short run that resulted in bad sound that were part of a more strategic view that ultimately resulted in great sound in the long run?
- Have your previous strategies held up as you evolved and experienced different types of music? If yes, how long have you held on to your system?
- Do you think deep thought is needed to build a system, or is it a bunch of bunk/ a sales pitch from the dealer or your acoustician as they are trying to con you out of your money, when in the end they are talking about personal taste ? (you just need this one last cable ...)
- is there a clear and predictable way to build a system? Are there right and wrong things, other than the blatantly obvious, such as a set amp to drive your planar speaker or getting a speaker the size of your room? Or do you find that following others' predictable advice of what a great system is stifles your imagination of how components and wires will interact, and resulted in bad sound for you?

I would say for me the speaker was the foundation,thank god it dissappeared and I some how knew that was important. I would say any purchase that makes the soundstage smaller is no good. If a purchase increases the size of the soundstage then that is good. The second most important marker is clarity and that can and does improve with noise reduction. Topology matters to a degree,but tubes aren't necessarily the only option. If you make a change based on experience and it is positive,understand why it worked and build on it. If a piece of equipment does nothing offensive and continued changes keep improving,why sell it or change. This is a fun hobby and for me it is the challenge to get the most out of it as possible. I have yet to hit the brick wall and maybe I'm close,at some point you have to realise that audio reproduction is a illusion,it is not or never will be "live". You can achieve a powerful and emotional reproduction and you can only know that through experience. It can be complicated,but need not be. Just enjoy the music and let the music come to you and it will if you understand some fundamentals. The size of the soundstage is a marker for the level of noise in the system and clarity is the thermometer.

 

[TBone]

I would say any purchase that makes the soundstage smaller is no good.

Any purchase which makes the "soundstage" size consistently bigger, isn't necessarily natural, nor is it likely to satisfy other musical expectations.

The size of the soundstage is a marker for the level of noise in the system and clarity is the thermometer.

I doubt I'm the only one who has heard pieces of equipment consistently enlarge a "soundstage" (I prefer the term depth-of-field) the exact same way, with every album no matter what the venue, making everything seem larger than life. I much prefer equipment which lets you into the recorded venue, no matter what the size.

tb1

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Any purchase which makes the "soundstage" size consistently bigger, isn't necessarily natural, nor is it likely to satisfy other musical expectations.



I doubt I'm the only one who has heard pieces of equipment consistently enlarge a "soundstage" (I prefer the term depth-of-field) the exact same way, with every album no matter what the venue, making everything seem larger than life. I much prefer equipment which lets you into the recorded venue, no matter what the size.

tb1

when more information comes out of a lower noise floor, and note decay is more complete, then the system is resolving more space. that is always a plus.

if you simply expand the same information to seem larger like blowing up a balloon, then that ends up reducing focus and the sense of proper scale, and that can be not desirable. of course, it can be what you want depending on preference.

then there is having the soundstage waay behind the speakers, verses the imaging come forward into the room with different layers of depth. I prefer that each recording have it's own characteristics in this regard. the best recordings seemingly holographic and make it as if you can reach out and touch it.

 

[TBone]

Mike, I get the walk-in sound-stage criteria, and although my system initiatives include the all important lowering of the noise floor (from not only an equipment point of view) in order to hear "silence" as space & time ... my main criteria leans toward proper instrumental impact. Like a live event, a "great" system should be felt as much as heard (and I'm not simply referencing lower frequency instrumental impact).

tb1

 

[RogerD]

Any purchase which makes the "soundstage" size consistently bigger, isn't necessarily natural, nor is it likely to satisfy other musical expectations.



I doubt I'm the only one who has heard pieces of equipment consistently enlarge a "soundstage" (I prefer the term depth-of-field) the exact same way, with every album no matter what the venue, making everything seem larger than life. I much prefer equipment which lets you into the recorded venue, no matter what the size.

tb1

when more information comes out of a lower noise floor, and note decay is more complete, then the system is resolving more space. that is always a plus.

if you simply expand the same information to seem larger like blowing up a balloon, then that ends up reducing focus and the sense of proper scale, and that can be not desirable. of course, it can be what you want depending on preference.

then there is having the soundstage waay behind the speakers, verses the imaging come forward into the room with different layers of depth. I prefer that each recording have it's own characteristics in this regard. the best recordings seemingly holographic and make it as if you can reach out and touch it.

The above is entirely recording dependent. Great systems will reproduce the recording as it was mic'd and the format used. If the sounstage wraps around such as some London Phase 4 or living stereo recordings do,frankly this "natural" obsession that people have is a fallacy,because on one recording a vocalist playing a guitar such as Simon and Garfunkel at Lincoln center sounds natural and Judy Garland at Carnegie Hall sounds natural,meaning you hear the venue and all the performers and the audience. What was recorded is what you get. If I play a great organ piece I want that organ to explode,ripple through my room and exalt me into tremendous awe and wonder and that is what a great system should do,reproduce the illusion to a greater part of reality.

Now if the speaker system is setup properly and is coherent and throws a believable image size,but does not have great clarity,the problem is noise and noise effects everything in the reproduction it masks and limits the audio signal,it robs the system of reproducing what is actually on the recording. Noise is not part of distortion as noise can be eliminated without adding or subtracting from the signal path.

 

[TBone]

The above is entirely recording dependent

No, the above SHOULD be record dependent, but that reality is very much system dependent.

 

[RogerD]

No, the above SHOULD be record dependent, but that reality is very much system dependent.

Quite frankly if it is system dependent,then there is no system in place,atleast one that is any good.

 

[TBone]

Now if the speaker system is setup properly and is coherent and throws a believable image size,but does not have great clarity,the problem is noise and noise effects everything in the reproduction it masks and limits the audio signal,it robs the system of reproducing what is actually on the recording. Noise is not part of distortion as noise can be eliminated without adding or subtracting from the signal path.

Noise can be a deviant entity, which needs to be eliminated; before it can be understood.

 

[TBone]

Quite frankly if it is system dependent,then there is no system in place,atleast one that is any good.

Matter of perspective, ex: when a system lets you consistently hear & identify that unique NEVE / studio type sound when reproducing albums from Abby Road / Sound City, that's convincing enough for me ...

 

[RogerD]

Matter of perspective, ex: when a system lets you consistently hear & identify that unique NEVE / studio type sound when reproducing albums from Abby Road / Sound City, that's convincing enough for me ...

Isn't that on the recording? Which is my point,you should be able to tell that,if you know what you are listening to.

 

[Lee]

I think as one goes down the audiophile road and acquires a library of recordings and listens to them on various systems, it's not that hard to establish a viewpoint on how you think reproduced music ought to sound, and plenty of references for that sound. then you find a formula of gear that seems to take you closest to the sound you want.....and a target environment to place it in. in total, a system which is somewhere on the road you yourself chose.

depending on the degree of clarity and conviction you might have on this reference, you do move toward a coherent system which takes you to that performance place you seek.

some are maybe less sure about where they are going, and so are likely to jump around in various directions for who knows how many different reasons. or maybe follow another's direction who they have confidence in.

others who have a confident direction might hear something a bit different from their current path and get pulled somewhere else. and still others become so defensive about their choice of paths they stop being open to what they hear.

all these different approaches are valid; the hobby is what you want it to be for yourself. if you are enjoying the music, or the gear, or maybe even the conflict or the process of changing gear.....then good for you. if it causes you stress or sadness then that is a problem to worry about.

who is to say who is a system builder and who is a flavor master? it depends on your perspective.

as far as the engineers who record and mix the recordings we hear, hopefully we have enough recordings that we can decide for ourselves what is truth to us.

as far as my own system building philosophy, it is pretty simple. I want my system/room/gear to get out of the way of the music and not attach it's own sound to the recording. i look for neutral pieces to the system that need the least amount of balancing by other pieces. i want gear that stands on it's own as neutral and natural. I'm sure I'm not alone in that target agenda for my system.

i have my opinion on how I'm doing on my desires but no facts. it's a subjective thing. i am subjectively happy and satisfied with where I'm at.

Well said Mike.

 

[TBone]

Isn't that on the recording? Which is my point,you should be able to tell that,if you know what you are listening to.

... again, this depends entirely on a systems ability to convey those particular sonic clues; many systems mask (to various degrees) that type detail/transparency ... so again ... the key word is "should" ...