2. amps-preamps
  3. 1150907957

Sound Quality or Convenience?

OK, asking this question to audiophiles might seem inane, but I have read enough threads (not to mention For Sale ads!) that make me think that we sometimes feel ok sacrificing sound at the altar of convenience.

Would like to hear your experiences, along with perhaps some theoretical quantification... such as how much SQ can be let go for how much convenience, etc. For those who chose this path, was it a keeper or did you want that SQ so much you went back to it?

My own is a probably a familiar one: Maggie 3.6, which were not just visually er, challenging, but also required a lot of work to yield that magic. I gave up on the magic in favor of much easier speakers, and then did it again a couple of years later. I now own Zu Druids, which are as diametrically opposite to Maggies os one can get. They look and sound great (to my ears, this is NOT repeat NOT a Zu thread) and are easy to work with in terms of space, weight and amplification.
kck

Showing 3 responses by kck

kck OP
184 posts
 
Kenyonbm, spoken with the self-contradiction of a true audiophile! Not raggin' on you, just amused that I am not the only one. Hope I didn't misunderstand though.

Score so far is 5:1 in favor of convenience (kenyonbm counted once in each).
kck OP
184 posts
 
7:1 for convenience so far. Manufacturers take note...

Bartokfan, hoping you are not pulling my leg, SQ is sound quality. Sacrificing, etc. means giving up some (or a lot of) SQ for the sake of gaining some (or a lot of) convenience, such as remote, more inputs, lighter weight, other reasons as noted in the thread, etc. Obviously a very subjective/personal decision and therefore widely varied results are observed.
kck OP
184 posts
 
"looks, a super remote, fancy face plate, big bass in a ss amp, cool looking speaker, 'really hip looking"

Bartokfan, well, maybe. But, and no offense meant at all, your post was a little hard to follow and your examples are a little more, dare I say shallow, than real conveniences, such as:

* remote vs no remote (super not an issue)
* smaller, more portable (for setup) speaker (vs cool looking, not really a 'convenience')
* more inputs for all your sources than one or two.

NOTE that what is a convenience issue to me may not be such to you and vice-versa. You may hate to bias an amp while I think such a labor of love, undertaken 3 times a year, is no problem. Just an example... one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

To me looks, while nice to have such as match my tastes, are not dealmakers and very rarely dealbreakers if other things are in place. I once owned a preamp that was so fugly even its mother didn't love it. I put up with it 'cause it sounded nice. When it started to demand that I regularly open it up to tweak the internal pots for balance is when I took it for a long drive in the woods and left it there.

Dear Readers: The poll is so far running heavily in favor of convenience, and the count is suspended unless a whole bunch of SQers chime in.
More to discover