2. tech-talk
  3. 169525-140

System building; a meditation

System building; a meditation

This is an offshoot of a posting I made in a different thread; that is, what is one’s approach to building a system out of various components that maximizes the sonic attributes of the combination of particular components?There’s been some push-back on “tweaks” but leave that to the side for now. How does one select what components to include in a system, putting to one side budgetary constraints? (the budget thing can be solved in several ways, including through used and through a deliberate strategy to acquire certain components over time that achieve a certain result- my point being, if it weren’t simply a constraint of capital, how does one choose?)

There seem to be a few rules that we abide by- the relationship of amp to speaker being fundamental. The choice of front end –from DIY digital to high end analog is also a choice, but I’ll be agnostic in this regard even though I came up through the LP and still regard it as the mainstream medium of choice, simply because of the wealth of material in older records.

How do people choose the combinations of equipment they employ? Is it happenstance, the gradual upgrading of each component to a high standard or some other benchmark for what the system is supposed to do that necessitates certain choices?

For what it is worth, I don’t endorse one single approach; I went from electrostat listening (including ribbon tweets and subs) to horns, sort of (Avantgardes plus subs) and SET as one choice, but have heard marvelous systems using larger, relatively inefficient dynamic set ups (Magico; Rockport, TG, etc.) combined with big solid state power that left a very positive impression.

How do you sort through the thicket? It isn’t just specs, and listening within your system to evaluate is an ideal, but I’m opening this up to system building in general—what approach do you take? I’m not sure there is a single formala, but thought it worth exploring since it seems to be an undercurrent in a lot of equipment changes without addressing the “why?” of it or how one makes these choices.

I know that we are mired in a subjective hobby, and almost every system is different, even if the components are the same in a different room, but thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion. If not, the lack of responses will prove me wrong. I don’t have a single answer to this FWIW.


128x128whart

Showing 2 responses by fsonicsmith

fsonicsmith's avatar
fsonicsmith
936 posts
 
All this talk of avoiding coloration....
What does a luthier strive for when crafting a guitar or violin body? The answer is a complimentary and resonant coloration. A good analogy is that fermented cabernet grapes need a degree of oak to bring out the best of both in a finished wine. The oak is a coloration or adjunct to the "pure" uncolored grape juice. 
This is why, imho, totally inert speaker enclosures are a misdirected pursuit. 
This topic involves more than loudspeakers-the overall goal needs to be identified and addressed first. Doesn't it simply make logical sense that if the goal is to recreate what was heard in the studio we would all be listening at home with studio equipment? Ever listened to studio equipment at length? I have. It is clinical, sterile, and cold. 
I am happy to acknowledge that what floats my boat is not what floats another's. I like a system to be immersive so that the sound washes over me and conveys emotion. Piano and the human voice don't need to be 100% true to the source so long as it sounds like the real thing. There is a difference between the two. It is like the difference between a dry historically accurate description of an event versus the verisimilitude of a fictionalized account of the same event. 
After enough time in this hobby you can fairly easily discern the electronics, sources, and loudspeakers that will suit your preference. Reading reviews leads to more wrong paths taken/purchasing mistakes than any other source of "audio disease". With the demise of audio shops one has to find an experienced retailer (often out of state), describe what you are looking for and listen to the advice given. Perhaps audio shows will survive and they help despite being something akin to carnival mirrors. Listening to other's systems helps. And then, finally, one needs to realize that the trial and error process, the pursuit, is what makes this hobby fun. If I lived on Park Avenue and had some audio guru come in one day while I was out and install the perfect system for me, the nadir of all that I could ever wish for, I am pretty sure I would feel that I had been robbed. 
fsonicsmith's avatar
fsonicsmith
936 posts
 
Signal integrity.
No unnecessary contentiousness meant-only good spirited difference of opinion. "Signal integrity" is again, misguided. Let's forget vinyl playback or digital which are both fraught with "signal integrity" shortcomings, let's forget about loudspeakers where "signal integrity" fails so badly that it utterly does not apply, and let's for the sake of good spirited debate focus on amplification. "Signal integrity" is only one aspect of amplifier design. Have you ever seen a passage of music analyzed on an oscilloscope for input and output integrity? Nope, you haven't. And square waves at fixed frequencies make for easy measurements but they don't emulate music. I will skip right over the fact that many amplifiers and preamps that measure as "state of the art" on the test bench don't sound "right". Further, if "signal integrity" was all that mattered with preamps than mere attenuators would rule the roost of preamp design. They don't. Why in the world would you think that two words are all that is necessary to answer such a complex topic and how in the world can two words not be over-simplistic? Reminds me of Walter Brooks telling Dustin Hoffman that his future laid "in plastics.Think about it"
More to discover