I try to assemble a system that recreates the illusion of a live performance. Earlier in this thread, I became aware this isn't everyone's goal. Whitecamaross and many contributors stated their own preferences - and that's fine, our systems allow us to enjoy our music the way we want.
Occasionally, I gain great value and insight from whitecamaross and others sharing their experiences. This just happened, which prompted me to contribute.
There are many variables involved when striving to recreate the illusion of a live performance - the listening room acoustics and the quality of the recording are 2 examples.
There are times though when equipment unquestionably presents things more realistically (like when applause is imaged very clearly and distinctly as being in front of the performance instead of being background haze).
A system like this conveys music precisely as it was performed and recorded. Software (the recording) becomes critical. Most rock music is no longer engaging when replayed on our stereo, we prefer to listen to well recorded acoustic performances; contemporary jazz, solo artists with bands and orchestra music too - again, all recorded well that allows one to experience the venue in which the performance occurred.
While others may enjoy equipment that allows music that isn't recorded as well to be portrayed in a more enjoyable way (sweetness per whitecamaross), we prefer our system to have the highest fidelity possible - because when great performances (that are recorded very well) are listened to, they're an exceptional experience.
Recently, whitecamaross described what I experienced with Wilson speakers - they convey different acoustics of equipment / performance / recording / venue very well. And kstaken very well compared the Luxman and Benchmark equipment. I've always wondered what the Luxman sounded like and now, with this comparison - I have a good insight (minus the expense of the experience). And I have the insight with the Benchmark equipment as well so thank you kstaken!
Humbly, I would also like to share a few of my own requests and findings.
First - whenever we're evaluating something, our system must be at a performance level that will easily and clearly allow the change to heard / noticed / observed. Yes, whitecamaross's system is that and more, but it's amazing how many people state cables make no difference. Everyone who listened to our system easily identified the different sound (when cables were switched blindly) and which way sounded more realistic.
Second - when we make a change, it should be only with a single component in a system, and with music we're intimately familiar with (and again with well recorded music). This way, we can specifically identify what difference that change made. Sometimes whitecamaross makes multiple changes that makes acutely identifying a components' sound more difficult (and I realize this is done to obtain a desired result).
Finally - I compared Pass XA-200.5 with the Momentum monos in a system I was familiar with, with my own music - and I recognized the differences. The Momentum amp's had better bass but were dryer. By this I mean the didn't convey the acoustic performance as naturally. While I'm an engineer by profession - I won't begin to pretend to quantify what was occuring (or wasn't occuring) that made the presentation slightly less real but it was easily noticed.
Thank you once again whitecamaross and all those who contribute. I hope this thread provides each other with shared experiences we all gain from - I know it does for me :-).
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. It's the best time of the year!
Safe, healthy and Happy Holidays to all :-)
Occasionally, I gain great value and insight from whitecamaross and others sharing their experiences. This just happened, which prompted me to contribute.
There are many variables involved when striving to recreate the illusion of a live performance - the listening room acoustics and the quality of the recording are 2 examples.
There are times though when equipment unquestionably presents things more realistically (like when applause is imaged very clearly and distinctly as being in front of the performance instead of being background haze).
A system like this conveys music precisely as it was performed and recorded. Software (the recording) becomes critical. Most rock music is no longer engaging when replayed on our stereo, we prefer to listen to well recorded acoustic performances; contemporary jazz, solo artists with bands and orchestra music too - again, all recorded well that allows one to experience the venue in which the performance occurred.
While others may enjoy equipment that allows music that isn't recorded as well to be portrayed in a more enjoyable way (sweetness per whitecamaross), we prefer our system to have the highest fidelity possible - because when great performances (that are recorded very well) are listened to, they're an exceptional experience.
Recently, whitecamaross described what I experienced with Wilson speakers - they convey different acoustics of equipment / performance / recording / venue very well. And kstaken very well compared the Luxman and Benchmark equipment. I've always wondered what the Luxman sounded like and now, with this comparison - I have a good insight (minus the expense of the experience). And I have the insight with the Benchmark equipment as well so thank you kstaken!
Humbly, I would also like to share a few of my own requests and findings.
First - whenever we're evaluating something, our system must be at a performance level that will easily and clearly allow the change to heard / noticed / observed. Yes, whitecamaross's system is that and more, but it's amazing how many people state cables make no difference. Everyone who listened to our system easily identified the different sound (when cables were switched blindly) and which way sounded more realistic.
Second - when we make a change, it should be only with a single component in a system, and with music we're intimately familiar with (and again with well recorded music). This way, we can specifically identify what difference that change made. Sometimes whitecamaross makes multiple changes that makes acutely identifying a components' sound more difficult (and I realize this is done to obtain a desired result).
Finally - I compared Pass XA-200.5 with the Momentum monos in a system I was familiar with, with my own music - and I recognized the differences. The Momentum amp's had better bass but were dryer. By this I mean the didn't convey the acoustic performance as naturally. While I'm an engineer by profession - I won't begin to pretend to quantify what was occuring (or wasn't occuring) that made the presentation slightly less real but it was easily noticed.
Thank you once again whitecamaross and all those who contribute. I hope this thread provides each other with shared experiences we all gain from - I know it does for me :-).
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. It's the best time of the year!
Safe, healthy and Happy Holidays to all :-)