What does your Virtual System page say about you? 


I was browsing through virtual systems today, and noticed three major categories:

  1. People who list their components from speakers to source(s)
  2. People who list their components from source(s) to speakers
  3. People who appear to have a hodgepodge of equipment listed

I would hypothesize that people in group #1 belong to the "speakers first" school of system design, and people in group #2 are "source first".

Are the people in group #3 indifferent? Disorganized? Or listed their equipment in either "speakers first" or "source first" order initially, but as their systems evolved, removed things they sold and then tacked new acquisitions to the end of the list?

If you find yourself groups 1 or 2, can you confirm or refute the hypothesis?

If you are in group 3, what's your methodology? Did your system evolve over time? Or is the listing order just not important to you?

Not sure there are any deep psychological implications, but I was just curious.

(Yes, I know I don't have a virtual system listed. I am currently moving too frequently to get a setup I'm not embarrassed to photograph; I will add a virtual system listing hopefully near the end of this year)
 

sfgak

Ain’t nothing wrong with being a 3!

...as long as we are all on the same scale, with 1 being super-awesome and 10 being not-even-close-to-awesomewink

This is interesting, I never thought about this and just listed the system as I thought it made sense. . . Speakers first. Most important and impactful component at the top of the list. I would rate the room #1 as that is the biggest hurdle to overcome, you can’t cheat physics. I’ll think about this every time I view a profile now  lol 

- Steve

As any good investigator will tell you….follow the money.  In this case, follow the signal.  Source to speakers