What does your Virtual System page say about you?
I was browsing through virtual systems today, and noticed three major categories:
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)
I had to look to see how I had my stuff listed. Neither source or speakers first. Amp, preamp, streamer, speakers and the rest is the balance of components and cables. I guess I view the amp and preamp as the heart of the system. My speakers are the most expensive item, but they were 4th. Not sure what that means, if anything. |
My 'virtual system' is stale (very stale!). But if I had a preferred methodology, it would be for listing the speakers 1st as the rest, i.e. electronics, serve the needs of the speakers and their set up. If I were to look at your system that is exactly what I would look at and judge the extent of your knowledge about audio stuff by. |
@newbee Doh! I didn't think about just listing my components, without pictures, as you did. That would solve my "too messy to photograph while moving too frequently" problem. Maybe I'll add a virtual system soon... I also wonder if people who use multiple sources tend to be "speakers first" out of practicality, and sole-source people list "source first" more often... for space reasons, I gave up vinyl in favor of streaming (+ a CD transport for albums I have that are not available on streaming). But being 98% streaming, I'm biased toward creating my listing "source first"... |
Mine says nothing which means I need to quit being lazy, take pictures, and actually add it to the site! Thinking through the original question I would start from source through speakers in the reproduction chain but to me my speakers, in my room, are the most critical. Well, other than the room itself. |
@ghdprentice I will do so this weekend. Thanks for the push. |
Very surprised by these responses. I'd have thought that audiophiles were compulsive perfectionists who never do anything with their systems that they can't justify with elaborate arguments. For me, I list components in order of their importance for sound quality. Therefore, speakers first, then the room, then amplification, source, cables, etc. The "etc." includes silly tweaks (cable risers, Schumann Resonance Generators, and so on). I do have a virtual system, by the way, with 25 pictures and a narrative of over 5,500 words. But I've long since closed it to general viewing. |
Sources first seemed logical to me. Though I'll admit that when I was doing the entry it was more middle out. Also, i thought for a while about should the clock go since that is a separate branch. Matters were complicated by my having the Bluesound Vault - used almost exclusively for ripping my CDs - I have over 2,000 - so if I listen to a CD I then rip it after (usually!). I also listed two power amps as I do go back and forth. |
Source first, starting with the most important: TT. This is what I like, call it "emotional importance". The rest follows the signal path, despite my Pearlacoustics SG speakers being #2 in what I like. I fully realize that in importance of sound, it is room first and foremost, then speakers, the rest is garnish. Audioholics had recently a nice YouTube video with quantification for this. |
Haven't checked what I did. Not sure it matters to me. I'm always trying to find the synergy with my system. Think for most of us, our virtual systems are just a moment in time. They are constantly changing and evolving. My speakers get swapped out every once in a while, still working out what footers work best for my TT, changing cables from time to time. My camp would be speakers make the biggest difference. Most other things are tweaks. However, I did do a complete referb on my pre and power amps. Replaced like 100+ components. That did make a HUGE difference in sound from bottom to top. That totally surprised me. |
Subconscious could be enlightening, too. I know some people who stock their pantry all labels facing forward, and some who are more haphazard. May not be a conscious decision, but if I were armed with this information, it might influence who I would hire as a project manager...
Bingo!
|
OK, finally listed a Virtual System https://www.audiogon.com/systems/11907 Thanks for the push, @ghdprentice @jond and others. Please forgive the messiness; this is a temporary location and I’m just not putting any work into clean cabling / room treatment. I opted for "source(s) to speakers" as an order, with a few things (ICs, speaker cables) tacked on at the end. It seemed to make sense to me. |
@sfgak - everything is important in a system, really - I wouldn’t read much into the categories you stated. If any one puts things in an order, it’s more for organisational purposes than importance 😉 In friendship - kevin |
@macg19 Ain’t nothing wrong with being a 3! |
@snilf Still visible when not logged in.
|
Thanks, @ghdprentice ! |
