@calvinj , I am also going to say that in my small untreated flawed room with the speakers and front end that I now have on board, what I now hear that makes the biggest difference in SQ is due to the quality of the source material. I am (for good or for ill) all digital, and I am not just referring to my taste in music. I am not a huge jazz fan, but over the past couple of years I have been trying, and although it is not my favorite genre, some of the jazz SACDs I have bought over the last few years have some of the best sonic quality ("more musical", ha ha) in my collection. And then there are CDs in my collection from genres that I really like and those from genres that I used to really like that have the nails-on-a-chalk-board-effect on me. I have SACDs that are nothing special in SQ as well . . . on the other hand I have red-book stuff that I am totally blown away by, and I assume it is my front end (most specifically the SACDP) interacting with a "well" recorded mixed and mastered disc.
Which leads me to conclude that the very front of the system MIGHT be the most important link in the entire chain. But since I know that is an invitation to pushback, I am going to qualify that by saying that I am only speculating as a mostly satisfied and not disgruntled consumer who loves the sound of his system in a small bad room when it (the system) is getting things right.
|
I get great transparency, detail, soundstage with a small hint of warmth and musicality.
@calvinj , with absolutely no intention of taking this down a rabbit hole, how do you define a "small hint of musicality"?
|
|
My "listening room" (such as it is) is small and highly flawed (and if it isn't highly flawed it is only because of total luck) and by everything I have read, the level of my electronics totally exceeds the acoustic capabilities of the room. However, there is certain (digital) source material that absolutely shines, and in the dark with my eyes closed the sound stage prevails and the room disappears.
On the other hand, I have rolled tubes that were completely "blah" and I have source material that is flat as a board. My last upgrade was a preamp and I lost some warmth but I gained air and detail.
I would think that if it ALL comes down to the room, and that without the room, NOTHING else matters, I wouldn't hear the difference between tubes that I like and those that I don't like and lifeless source material versus some of my better sounding SACDs and red-book CDs.
|
I am also going to say that in my small untreated flawed room with the speakers and front end that I now have on board, what I now hear that makes the biggest difference in SQ is due to the quality of the source material.
Another thing of huge importance is the quality of the recording. Or of the lp, cd, radio broadcase.
"Garbage in, garbage out"?
|
It sometimes almost reads as if there is a prevailing school of thought here that is that if you don’t have an acoustically treated room it just doesn’t matter what gear you put in it because it is all going to sound bad.
I don’t have an acoustically tuned room, and I have no doubt that my system would sound better if I did have one, but I also know that even in a bad room I can hear that different components produce different quality of sound.
|
The room has a significant effect on sound. This has been known a long long time, nothing new here.
I am sure that is true, but so does the equipment.
I went from a somewhat "cluttered" living room with unequal side walls (meaning no sidewall on one side depending upon which end I had my speakers at), andalso depending upon which end my speakers were at, the front wall/or rear wall had an open hallway leading into/out of it . . . so, as I was saying, I went from this room to a small spare bedroom with different stuff on one sidewall than the other (bookshelf on one sidewall and gunsafe and equipment shelves on other sidewall) and bookshelves completely covering what is now the backwall. This turned into a very nearfield room. I thought I would enjoy the intimacy I thought I would achieve in the small room, and I actually do enjoy the fact that there are no distractions back there, but I do find that I miss the open feeling and ability to crank up some volume in the living room. But by moving some stuff out of my current small room and spending some time playing with speaker positioning and listening in the dark I can appreciate that with good source material that the soundstage that is created actually seems to extend beyond the boundaries of the room.
All of that was to say that through this I realize that the room does have a dramatic effect on the the sound that is reproduced.
But: in both flawed rooms I have played around with different pieces of equipment (digital front ends, preamps, amps, cabling and speakers) and in both flawed rooms I have heard differences in sound quality (both good and bad differences) as I played around with different gear.
|
@mahgister , I wasn't directing that post at you. As a matter of fact, I rarely completely read most of your posts. However, I don't think that anyone can read through the responses to (for example) this thread, and deny that the "school of thought" I referenced does not exist.
|
@mahgister , almost everyone who posts here claims to be knowlegeable; however, quite often their opinions appear to me to be 180 degrees out from each other. Therefore, I will continue to refer to different schools of thought.
|
@mahgister , I am not arguing with what you have typed above.
I may well be the only one on this thread (and one of the only few on this site) who freely admits he is not knowlegeable.
And I also believe that if I had my system in a properly treated room it would sound better than it does now.
But I also know that in two untreated (probably acoustically unfriendly) rooms, I have made equipment changes and auditions that changed the SQ.
I also know that I have read posts from people who believe that they are knowlegeable that state (often unequivocally) that:
if you cannot measure it you cannot hear it
the room is EVERYTHING and next to the room the speaker is EVERYTHING
good speakers make crappy electronics shine and good electronics do nothing for crappy speakers
everything except for room and speakers is snake oil
anyone who believes anything other than all of the above is a victim of confirmation bias.
And I simply refer to those as being one or more school(s) of thought and I happen to subscribe to different schools of thought. Not that I wouldn't like better speakers and a better room. But I have heard very afforable speakers on electronics that were their match and electronics that were way above their level. I have experienced what an upgrade to those speakers sounded like. Then I experienced what upgrades and auditions of potential upgrades did for the new speakers. And all in untreated rooms. So I do not buy that the room is EVERYTHING.
|
Again, @mahgister , I did not attribute all or any of those schools of thought to anyone in particular, least of all to you.
However, I am saying that here on this site and also on Audio Asylum I have read posts that endorse all of those schools of thought, And almost all (if not all) of those people believe that they are knowlegeable.
|
I'm using $800 JBL Mini towers with a $20K Aavik u-150 integ......best sound I've had...all about SYNERGY !
@mbmi , I also believe that the electronics in front of the speakers makes a difference. By almost every post I have read, over the years I wound up allocating my electronics to speaker ratio funds totally backwards.
|
@immatthewj i 100% agree with you my system is 25% speakers. 75% electronics! My system is that way and I’m extremely happy
@calvinj , and I am afraid my electroics $ to speaker $ ratio is even more skewed than that. That is partially because my (25 or 26 year old?) speakers are the 2cond oldest components in my system (my subwoofer being the oldest) and my preamp and CDP are the newest (under 5 years old) so inflation needs to be taken into account, but still. . . . And I truly would like to audition some better speakers. . . .
Anyway, I was going to spare this thread any of my audio anecdotes, but this one is just about how much electronics can make a difference even in a flawed room. Back in the late ’90s I was listening to my present speakers (B&W 805 Matrixes which are stand mounted monitors) using a Cary SLA 70 Signature to drive them with, with a B&K digital HT preamp in front of that, and for the source I was using a Carver CDP as a transport to a Muse Model 2 Dac. (All of that stuff has long since been replaced.) I had a sound that I enjoyed listening to, but I certainly was not getting the sound stage I had read about frequently in Stereophile, and sound stage was something I really wanted more of.
Some time in the late ’90s, the Stereophile cover girl and featured pin up was the Mesa Baron amp (I still have that issue, btw). What a looker. Two monoblocks with six output tubes each in one chassis, meters, switches, knobs, rack handles. . . . Anyway, believe it or not, one of the few local dealers had a demo and he offered me a great trade on my Little Cary, and he let me take it home for the weekend and I was to bring it back on Monday or buy it. His advice was to listen (this is where some of the switches come in) in 1/3 triode and 2/3 pentode.
I got this amp home and set up and hooked up and i WANTED to like it. And I truly did. I typed that I never experienced a sound stage before . . . well . . . I was listening to the Cowboy Junkies a lot back then, and this brought Margo Timmins right up in my face. I became a Leonard Cohen fan through "Natural Born Killers" the same time as I discovered the Junkies, and I still remember his voice sounding more menacing and sardonic and right up in my face than ever before and I enjoyed the experience. And up front and personal and filling the room was pretty much with everything I listened to all day Saturday and Sunday.
However, in addition to being right up front and perhaps adding a sensuous quality to them, vocals sounded sort of husky and musky and it made me think of listening to a music in a room filled with cigarette smoke. But this was unique for me and I was transported somewhere else and I initially liked it.
Sunday night I had just about made up my mind to trade my sweet little Cary in for this behemoth. So the last thing I did before I unhooked the Mesa Baron was to listen to Cowboy Junkies/Sweet Jane (I think I may have listened to both Trinity Sessions and the one and only commercially available, at the time, live version).
Then I hooked my sweet little Cary back up and listened to Sweet Jane again--probably both versions. Wow. The sound stage shrunk to the back wall and around the speakers again, and I wouldn’t call this an A/B because taking amps down and putting amps up and hooking and unhooking wires/cables is a bit time consuming . . . but . . . I had read about a "black background" before, but I never knew what the term truly meant until I heard my sweet little Cary playing Sweet Jane after two days with The Baron. Cymbals shimmering in the air and Margo sounding as if her jaw was clenched on a certain passage. . . . Anyhow, the dealer was not thrilled with my decision, but he took it in stride. However, he did make a comment about "how one gets used to an old shoe. . . ."
The reason I related this aural experience is because I intended it to illustrate the clearly audible differences I heard between electronics using the same speakers in the same flawed room.
Although I still own my sweet little Cary, later on I would pick up a couple of truly dynamic and large sounding ARC VTM120s, a second hand Cary preamp (SLP90) that is my definition of what more musical (than the B&K HT pre) sounds like, and add another piece between my transport and Dac, and then, not due to sound but due to reliability, I would replace the ARCs with a stereo amp that I don’t honestly think sounds better, but I don’t have to worry about getting the soldering iron out when I flip the switches on it. And, as I typed earlier in this long winded reply. within the last four to five years I upgraded my digital front end (I wanted the SACD experience) and the preamp (I had been lusting for the Cary SLP05 for quite some time).
In comparison to the rest of my reply, that last paragraph was quite short. But although the audible impressions the other equipment that I just referred to was not as dramatic as that experience with the Mesa Baron, even in my flawed room with my way less than perfect abused ears, with all my equipment changes I heard differences.
Oh well . . . ramble on. . . .
|
@calvinj , you made an analogy to cars (engines and aerodynamics) and here is another one this thread makes me think of. I had a buddy who spent as much time with guns as audiophiles here do with achieving sonic results. He used to tell me that his formula for properly scoping a rifle was to spend as much on the scope as one spent on the rifle. Meaning a $1700 rifle should have a $1700 scope (and that was over ten years ago, so the Lord only knows what that rifle and scope would go for now).
So I did that once ($1700 and $1700) and I am going to come right out and say that it was not the best money I ever spent. But the thing is: if I could have only bought one or the other, would I have been better off buying just the scope with no rifle to put it on? Or would just the rifle actually turned out to be handier, even without a scope? Yeah, I know . . . it’s probably apples & oranges. . . .
|
My opinion too .... Thanks ....
Well, you know what they say about opinions. . . .
|
I only quoted you. Why are you throwing a hissy fit?
But do you know what they say about opinions?
|
So you do know what they say about opinions?
|
We do all have opinions.
However, some state that their "opinions" are undisputeable facts.
|
. . . and if one does hear a sonic improvement with better electronics in a bad room--it is obviously due to "confirmation bias."
But could confirmation bias ever play a part in how one perceives the effect of his or her high dollar investment in room treatment? NO WAY!! Why, that is just not possible!!
|
I had given many arguments to assert my opinion about what means "musical" ...
What you did was typed a lot of undecipherable word salad that you stated was indisputable FACT. Then you went on to state that Mirriam Webster has it all wrong, but you have it absolutely and undeniably correct. And you still won't explain why anyone should take seriously that gobble-de-gook that you type, but not Mirriam Webster.
Keep your "taste" and opinion grounded in your navel ... And i will keep mine grounded in acoustics...
Keep it where ever you wish. It doesn't matter to me, but at least it does appear as if you are now understanding that the definition of music/musical/musicality is a matter of "taste and opinion."
|
You put in my mouth the false claim i never said that it is impossible to distinguish between a low cost design and a way better and costlier one ...
And you continue to attribute everything that I type to being about you.
|
Am i too complex for your brain ? it seems so..
I don't think that "complex" is the adjective that I would choose.
|
Mirriam webster define as any dictionary a word by another synonymus word ... Musical is defined as euphony or harmonius which are synonyms...
What you do is to concoct your own definition for a given term and then state that your definition is truth, and not only that, it is the only truth.
|
that goes beyong the Merriam Webster defin ition by a synonym ...
I could stir up a vast hodge-podge of words also, and then spill them all out willy-nilly on to a computer screen, and that too would meet the criteria of "going beyond Mirriam Webster." However, it certainly would not make the junk I typed factual and Mirriam Webster’s definitions fictional.
|
@immatthewj why bother getting a better engine and transmission just make the car faster and better just make it more aerodynamic that will fix all the problems.
I was going to leave the analogies out of this, but this is good.
Obviously aerodynamics PLUS horsepower and torque would be ideal if you wanted to go fast ("fast" being another subjective term). But I once had a ’75 LTD (which by almost all standards is a big ugly boat) with a 460 in it, and I played around with a few things on it and I could get that monster to go over 120 mph and I actually surprised a few people at stoplight races once in a while. If I could have put that motor in a Mach 1, it would have gone even faster.
|
I am not sure how you managed to take the "definition of musical" thread and transport it over here to the "synergy of gear" thread, but since you did,
and what you have also did is taken the word "musical" which has a concrete meaning (which is "pertaining to music" in that a musical instrument is an instrument that pertains or produces music) (but then, unfortunately, the word "music" might need to be defined) and also has another less concrete definition (per Mirriam Webster)
having the pleasing harmonious qualities of music
(which is less concrete because what is pleasing to one is not pleasing to all, and that could also apply to a lesser extent to "harmonious")
and then you watched some videos and decided that, armed with what you thought you have gleaned from those videos, you would rewrite the definition of "musical" (with your own rambling stream of consciousness interpretation) And that is fine if it works for you on a personal level. But that is not how language works.
On it’s own, "hot" is somewhat subjective.
"Be careful, that is hot." That is subjective.
"Be careful, , that is 212 degrees f." That is objective.
Objective versus subjective/signs versus symptoms.
So apparently you have listened and watched some quacks that want to give the word "musical" a meaning beyond "pertaining to music" with their own acoustic interpretation and say that there is a "212 degree f definition" of musical sound and that this is so because they say that it is so. And it doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other, but I am simply informing you that language does not work that way. If over a period of time more and more people start watching these guys and enough people start using the definitions that they use, dictionaries will be rewritten and new meanings will be attributed and you (and them) will stand vindicated. And it won’t matter to me either way. But do not hold your breath--this is not liable to happen in your lifetime.
|
Given the preamp and the SACD player that I upgraded to within (I think) the last four years, and the crappy little untreated room that I put them in, I guess I should be disgruntled and dissatisfied. But I am not. It sounds better (even in the room that it is in) then it did before the upgrades. Now the focus between the speakers is tighter, the stage outside the speakers has more air and definition, the warbling of a harmonica or the squealing of an electric guitar or the brash brassy sound of a sax when the player bites down hangs with better delineation in mid air. Nuances and vocal inflections are more pronounced now than with the old gear. I can almost see Willie has he enunciates. No, I am not disgruntled or dissatisfied. In a better room I am sure it would sound even better. But I am sure that if, in the same room, I was to upgrade to better amps (I’d love to hear a pair of Cary 805s) and spend some serious money on a speaker upgrade that this would produce even better sound in the same bad room . I have my doubts that a rack system in a great well treated room would sound as good as what I am hearing now. But since I’ve never heard that, I cannot honestly say for sure.
You can go round and round with speakers, and cables but when you get the room sorted, you are on the express train to done.
Right...the guy with the crappy room should keep buying cables to try and fix his disgruntlement and the crap he hears
If you have a bad room you have a bad system and the solutions are to use headphones or find another room.
the room is paramount, as it couples with the chosen speakers
A guy can have very audiophile gear, but, the choice of such gear would be very different for a sht room.
most importantly the room
The gear choices matter less than the acoustics...
Acoustics rule everything in audio...Not the reverse so important it could be ..
|
