How good can it get, really? - my stereo sounds amazing!


I really love my stereo currently. I keep thinking I should be looking for the next piece to upgrade - phono stage, stereo subs, etc., but honestly not sure what to change or why I’d potentially spend more money to achieve a result that’s lesser or equal to my current sound quality. I sorta feel clueless as to how to proceed without screwing up what I have. I know it can get better but honestly I’m at a place when I just don’t know how it can. Hmmmmm.... not a bad problem I guess. Open to suggestions for sure. Thx.
paulgardner

Showing 8 responses by taras22

Like audiozenology states, furniture is no substitute for room treatments. FACT!

Actually that kinda depends on how and why the furniture was built. Read, its quite easy to design and build sound room specific furniture, and decorating features, that serve a dual purpose, and produce an acoustically correct environment that doesn't scream man-cave ( or cost a mint ).

No, they do not act as diffusers.

Uhhh, they actually do, though maybe not ideally.....and they can also act as absorbers, though again, maybe not ideally.

Doing a thorough acoustic inventory room is tricky business that often serves up surprising results. The square footage can add up quickly and can be your friend or your worst enemy. Its all about the frequencies attenuated or accentuated by those square feet and in what measure eh.

CD jewel boxes, for example, are actually *resonators* and not in a good way
.

Kinda curious, how exactly do you define " not in a good way". And like is it something intrinsic to resonators or just that particular resonator.

Do the experiment, take them all out of the room. Report your findings
.

Did that experiment decades ago....and frankly can’t be bothered to haul stuff into my listening room at your command. Was actually curious what exactly your experience was....were veils removed ?....did the sound-stage extend beyond the room?....was there a frequency specific suck-out?....was there a frequency specific glare or overhang ?....will you actually answer the question originally asked ?

And a question that you apparently cannot answer


And I really don’t think you can definitively answer that either....

>>>>I see. You did the experiment, you just don’t remember the results.

Here is what I see, I asked you a simple question, and you haven’t provided an answer....so you are being disingenuous, evasive, or have no clue what the change in your "experiment" produced and why.

Frankly this reminds me of the little dance you do around the theme, " what is an audio signal"... and the longer these dances go on the more I’m inclined to think the answers are behind door #3....please provide some answers and prove me wrong ...please disincline me...
I can definitively answer the question. I simply choose not to. You obviously do not know the answer. Really.


The proof I really don’t know is pretty overwhelming, starting with my admission of same. The proof of your knowing, is, uhhh, based kinda sorta solely on your word....which is...well...your word, nothing more, nothing less.

Me myself I’m still thinking you’re blowing smoke....for fun probably, but still blowing smoke...