A good system will reproduce acoustic instrument naturally, period...
All others sound ’s phantasm are not for me...
For example a system that could translate "heavy metal" dynamic waves of sound....Or organ bassier note....my system could do a very good job about heavy metal but i dont buy gear to create the most powerful dynamic possible in my room...
I dont need it... And i dont need the costly speakers that could do the job....I dont listen dynamic first....But timbre instrument first....
I guess my system is, in his class S.Q./price ratio, very good... More flexible tough than demanding...I will say optimal....
Acoustic is the key....Not the price paid neither the electronical design.... Acoustic is the key....Acoustic may cost nothing....
😁😎😊😊 |
I often use the phrase “in the same league”to describe a system that can compete with another. High end is essentially the big league.
Some systems are Dodgers, well financed and capable of winning more but not all contests. Others are Orioles, then everything in between.
That’s for comparing things on some absolute scale which really does not exist for home music systems.
Then there is that everybody has their favorite team. Could be any of those teams in the big league. We tend to call those people “audiophiles”.
A system either works well or it doesn’t to meet a users needs. That is the main thing. |
@douglas_schroeder
"The hard limitations of the genres of speakers and components becomes clear as day when many systems are built and assessed using a wide variety of musical genres."
Agreed.
I was happy listening to my collection of largely 60s/70s rock and pop for years and years on my small Rega bookshelves until a friend introduced me to Coltrane and Davis via his large bi-amped KEF floorstanders.
It soon became apparent that the tiny Regas, despite their superior midrange, could not do justice to those vintage Blue Note recordings the way the KEFS could.Without the double bass driving along the rest of the band, the performance lost most of its impact and momentum.
"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, Captain!" as a certain Scottish engineer may or may have not said.
|
An audio system that cannot play all music, all recordings superbly, is not much of a high end system. There are fundamental weaknesses, shortcomings in a system that cannot sound terrific with all genres of music and all recordings. @douglas_schroeder I had a quick peek at your system. Very impressive. It represents the opposite of my approach to audio. (Mine is strictly single driver, back loaded horn, flea powered SET etc.) Now clearly your system will do a lot of things mine won't, but I think you'd be mistaken if you think your system comes close to working as well as mine on the material mine is focused for. And by mistaken, I mean dead wrong. Now I am not suggesting one system, or one approach, is better than another. They are simply the result of different interpretations of what good sound reproduction is supposed to be. Long story short, your system will not play all recordings superbly if by "superbly" we mean a standard accepted by every discerning audiophile. Nor will mine. However, without doubt, both our systems are high end. |
douglas_schroedercleeds,
yes, I do have actual evidence of my claim. First, I have built
hundreds of audio systems from extreme budget on the low end of a couple
thousand dollars up to HiFi at the $100K mark. In reviewing I compare
such systems continuously ... That's the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. You do not provide any actual data to support your statement:
The fact is that most audiophiles'
systems are not nearly as good as they think.
|
cleeds, yes, I do have actual evidence of my claim. First, I have built hundreds of audio systems from extreme budget on the low end of a couple thousand dollars up to HiFi at the $100K mark. In reviewing I compare such systems continuously, and it becomes quite obvious what systems can and cannot do with all genres of music. The hard limitations of the genres of speakers and components becomes clear as day when many systems are built and assessed using a wide variety of musical genres.
It also becomes obvious that when people have middle to lower end systems and talk as though those systems are as good as those at shows, or they are close to SOTA, they have little understanding as to the actual performance spectrum for audio systems. Many people here make ridiculous performance claims for systems that are obviously incapable of what they are claiming. Their framework of reference is so narrow that they have no idea actually where their system is in absolute terms, and that is because they have built so few systems in their own room.
Secondly, all you have to do is look at the virtual systems here to know in a moment roughly where the performance level will be. There are precious few that can handle extreme music with aplomb. You can be assured that practically no system under $25K MSRP will be great with all genres of music, able to handle compressed music and extreme LF well. Eliminated are all smallish full range speakers, most dipole panels, almost the entirety of bookshelf speakers, all tower speakers with 8-10" woofers or smaller, etc. In other words, the vast majority of speakers alone, not even talking about quality of components, are physically incapable of handling some genres of music that are much more demanding. Playing these genres of music on such systems will sound like sh_t. Then, you have the people who don’t even consider cables important, so their system is automatically compromised, much less those who mix cables without any understanding of what they can do when used properly.
Factor in all the middle to low end electronics driving speakers and it is clear that most of those systems do not have premium sound regardless of what speakers they are driving. My point is not to disrespect budget audiophiles, but to point out that criticism of the genres of music is misplaced, and it is due in large part to people hearing it on seriously compromised systems.
|
douglas_schroederThe fact is that most audiophiles'
systems are not nearly as good as they think. Really? Do have any actual evidence to support that "fact"?
They blame the compressed
music ... And for good reason!... when in fact it is their rig that lacks. It seems to me that most audiophiles are reasonably happy with their systems, even as they may seek some improvement. But that's just my casual observation - I don't claim it as "fact."
|
Another thing is that people may not even be aware of how variable recordings are and think their system is the solution to make recording X sound the way they want it to, not how it actually is. Then one is stuck on the upgrade merry go round getting nowhere trying to make things into something that you want it to be but in fact is not. |
An audio system that cannot play all music, all recordings superbly, is not much of a high end system. There are fundamental weaknesses, shortcomings in a system that cannot sound terrific with all genres of music and all recordings.
The fact is that most audiophiles' systems are not nearly as good as they think. They blame the compressed music, the genre, when in fact it is their rig that lacks. |
I'm not saying a system should make a bad recording sound good, but at least enjoyable musically.
I agree that we need to stop listening to the gear and listen to the compositions they are playing. Our culture is far too skewed to the tech and not the musical culture itself. The musicians the composers even the politics that drove the music of the time.
|
This is philosophy and how we approach systems. There are folks here who are happy to alter their musical tastes to just audiophile recordings and relegate other music to the car.
These folks are criticized for listening to their system rather than listening to music. I disagree as these recording deliver an extraordinary experience.
li personally am not in that camp but I get it. I like to listen to these types of tracks from time to time. At a root level, I am in the flexibility camp and my system needs to sound good playing the music I like. If it doesn’t there is no real point.
Mono recordings from 30s and 40s might be extreme but so pretty much want most rock, jazz and classical recordings to sound good on my system. There will be exceptions. Some recording are just poorly done. But if it is a great system, an average recording should sound very good to me. |
I have left vinyl behind, but at one stage I had a turntable with three arms each with their own phono amp. I also almost always had two turntables. I was able to accommodate a wide spectrum of material.
This can be done on the digital side too. Use 2 or 3 sources, hooked to 2 or 3 DACs, hooked to 2 or 3 preamps and so forth.
Expensive, but you can have you cake and eat it too.
|
According to professor James Morrison, it might mean that we want everything and we don't want to have to wait for it.
|
|
|
|
We want the world and we want it now. |
Interesting question!
I think a system, beyond the fact of being flexible or demanding, relatively and accordingly to his components specifically designed parts, must be optimally embedded at the end anyway...
And an acoustically very optimally controlled audio system is anyway always at the same time relatively flexible and relatively demanding...
A system which would be essentially mainly flexible or essentially mainly demanding, would not be an ideal choice anyway, but a functionnally specialized commodity for some needs...
Acoustic is the ultimate test for a system....And acoustic dont give a damn about flexibility or demanding performance of the system, acoustical ask for OPTIMAL synergy between system and room....And then transform a flexible system in a more demanding one or transform a demanding system in a more flexible one.... This is the power of acoustic controls....
Then a high end system must be OPTIMALLY working.....What i call "well embedded in the 3 working dimensions" which will make it more demanding and more flexible at the same time....
|
