|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 12, 2021 7:57:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Sept 12, 2021 9:24:37 GMT -5
When I look at some of the pictures of Home gear here and around….my system looks like there’s stuff missing comparatively…( until it is heard).
Most of the “clutter” is an over indulgence in too many separate amplifiers plus redundancy in streaming devices that add little. Over indulging in “ protective gear” etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Sept 12, 2021 9:26:27 GMT -5
Excellent article. Thank you. And thank you for the admission. I'm not going to actually mention what I'm referring to, but you'll know why. I also want to agree with you that room treatments are the least violent way of improving the sound you're hearing.  |
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 12, 2021 9:34:34 GMT -5
Loved it!
IMO even handed, level headed, straightforward.
Bottom line, as a fellow forum buddy from another forum has always said, "Trust your ears" (Roberto).
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 12, 2021 10:30:45 GMT -5
Good article! I agree, although I think part of being an "audiophile" is not only searching for the best sound (however one may define that), but also the enjoyment of trying new gear. Us humans are stuck with a "grass is always greener" worry inside of us that never gives up.
I remember long ago I was so thrilled to get a Soundcraftsman 10-band equalizer. At first I loved playing with it but it didn't take too long before I got weary and my ears got so confused from making all the adjustments with 20 levers (10 per channel) that I pretty much just left it alone. More recently I got a Schiit Loki which has 4 bands and while I did find it helpful with some recordings I stopped using that too because it was just too much trouble. As of now instead of trying to fiddle with a recording, I just listen to it and try and appreciate how it is presented. Even if we try to get a "best" sound out of our system, there is so much variation in recording quality that there really is no "best" uniform setting or configuration that is going to satisfy everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Sept 12, 2021 11:50:46 GMT -5
Excellent article. Thank you. And thank you for the admission. I'm not going to actually mention what I'm referring to, but you'll know why. I also want to agree with you that room treatments are the least violent way of improving the sound you're hearing. As Floyd Toole says, speakers are most important. After that, the room is more important than everything else combined - DAC, preamp, amps, cables .... everything! I will add that the only thing more effective (and economical) than room treatment, is denial  |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,353
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 12, 2021 12:16:17 GMT -5
Cost-benefit is an analysis I have never and will never apply to audio/video gear. Buy what you like, buy what you need, buy what you can afford. One person's "benefit" might be your "liability."
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Sept 12, 2021 12:51:21 GMT -5
Excellent article. Thank you. And thank you for the admission. I'm not going to actually mention what I'm referring to, but you'll know why. I also want to agree with you that room treatments are the least violent way of improving the sound you're hearing. As Floyd Toole says, speakers are most important. After that, the room is more important than everything else combined - DAC, preamp, amps, cables .... everything! I will add that the only thing more effective (and economical) than room treatment, is denial Ever since Toole and Allison, I’ve “lost” the ability to separate the room from being an integral part of the loudspeaker itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 12, 2021 20:12:00 GMT -5
Cost-benefit is an analysis I have never and will never apply to audio/video gear. Buy what you like, buy what you need, buy what you can afford. One person's "benefit" might be your "liability." Actually, I think I have to question this one. One may admire a specific component, and that item may even be affordable. But unless you think it worth the price for your system, you won't buy it. THAT'S a cost-benefit analysis. You may not call it such, but each and every one of us does this with just about EVERY significant purchase we make (and on at least a weekly or monthly basis). |
|
|
|
Post by Ex_Vintage on Sept 12, 2021 22:17:33 GMT -5
Many pictures of audio systems I have seen, with various electronics displayed center stage, with grill-less speakers and other ancillary items like noticeably exotic cables, lighting and lifters and... These folks seem to be equally enamored with the look of their system as the sound. It all depends on who you want to impress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 13, 2021 8:20:32 GMT -5
Many pictures of audio systems I have seen, with various electronics displayed center stage, with grill-less speakers and other ancillary items like noticeably exotic cables, lighting and lifters and... These folks seem to be equally enamored with the look of their system as the sound. It all depends on who you want to impress. Maybe... Having the electronics center stage minimizes the length of speaker wires (generally agreed to be a good thing). Removing the grills from the speakers is also (generally) agreed to remove some diffraction of the wave launch. I'd agree that in most cases, the "noticeably exotic cables," cable lifters, tip-toes, etc. have minimum sonic effects. Lighting doesn't improve the sound, but it doesn't hurt it either. And for many, good aesthetics improve the WAF. So in general, I'd argue that a sense of aesthetics is not inimical to good sound. Boomzilla |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,353
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 13, 2021 8:51:23 GMT -5
Cost-benefit is an analysis I have never and will never apply to audio/video gear. Buy what you like, buy what you need, buy what you can afford. One person's "benefit" might be your "liability." Actually, I think I have to question this one. One may admire a specific component, and that item may even be affordable. But unless you think it worth the price for your system, you won't buy it. THAT'S a cost-benefit analysis. You may not call it such, but each and every one of us does this with just about EVERY significant purchase we make (and on at least a weekly or monthly basis). I assume that's what you do, and congrats. me, if I am genuinely interested in something want to try it, I buy it and try it. The cost only matters if it's out of reach, and then if it is out of my reach I wouldn't be interested in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Sept 13, 2021 9:41:07 GMT -5
My idea of simplicity: a turntable, preamp, amplifier and two speakers (the top row). The DAC laying on the preamp is unused. The stuff underneath is for the TV. TV and turntable share the main speakers.  |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Sept 13, 2021 10:12:01 GMT -5
IMO Cost benefit analysis is hard to use it in a hobby where other intangible factors are present.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,353
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 13, 2021 10:53:43 GMT -5
IMO Cost benefit analysis is hard to use it in a hobby where other intangible factors are present. And sometimes those intangibles like brand or aesthetics or "synergy" are more important than cost or complexity considerations. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 9,960
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 13, 2021 11:36:14 GMT -5
The people who study such things would say that everything we do includes a "cost/benefit analysis" - including when we decide to get up in the morning. DYohn says he would never do that sort of analysis with audio/video gear...
But, to me, the list he includes after that is a clearly a list of costs and benefits. ("getting what you like" and "getting what you need" are surely benefits; or "NOT getting what you need" may be counted as a cost; and "what you can afford" is clearly related to the cost.)
What makes it complicated is that we all have very different ideas about how to evaluate the costs and benefits - and even, in some cases, which is which.
Do you consider "having attractive speakers" a benefit or do you consider "having to look at speakers" to be a cost? Obviously, depending on your preference, you may consider the appearance of a certain particular speaker to be "a benefit" or "a cost".
(I have a friend who doesn't like seeing speakers at all... so he prefers built-ins... preferably hidden behind things like decorative grills and fake paintings.)
I personally prefer speakers that look like traditional speakers (benefit)... And I prefer real wood veneer with a natural finish - like oiled walnut (major benefit in looks; high cost in price)... And I don't especially like high-gloss finishes on wood (moderate cost in looks; high cost in price)... I find black painted speakers to be more or less "cost neutral" (neutral looks; neutral price)...
And I really really hate white plastic speakers (high cost in looks; neutral in price)... Therefore the results of my cost / benefit analysis currently incline me to purchase black speakers. (I would prefer the look of hand rubbed walnut veneer... but not enough to pay the additional cost.)
Likewise, some people like the fact that many room treatments make your room "look like a studio", while others disguise them as paintings. (So, to some, the look of standard room treatments is a benefit, but to others it is a cost.)
It seems obvious to me that, at a very high level, "getting what you need" is a major benefit... And "getting what you want" is also a benefit - but a less important one... And "paying a high price" for something is clearly a cost... But "settling for something I really don't enjoy using" is also a cost... The important thing is to avoid getting hung up on the details... (But, at the same time, acknowledge that you are always "doing the math" somehow.)
Cost-benefit is an analysis I have never and will never apply to audio/video gear. Buy what you like, buy what you need, buy what you can afford. One person's "benefit" might be your "liability." Actually, I think I have to question this one. One may admire a specific component, and that item may even be affordable. But unless you think it worth the price for your system, you won't buy it. THAT'S a cost-benefit analysis. You may not call it such, but each and every one of us does this with just about EVERY significant purchase we make (and on at least a weekly or monthly basis). |
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230 
|
Post by novisnick on Sept 13, 2021 11:53:49 GMT -5
My idea of simplicity: a turntable, preamp, amplifier and two speakers (the top row). The DAC laying on the preamp is unused. The stuff underneath is for the TV. TV and turntable share the main speakers. View AttachmentI like the fact that you have security guarding your system at all times! #OVERWATCH |
|
|
|
Post by repeetavx on Sept 14, 2021 23:16:31 GMT -5
Lighting doesn't improve the sound, but it doesn't hurt it either. And for many, good aesthetics improve the WAF. So in general, I'd argue that a sense of aesthetics is not inimical to good sound. Boomzilla Interestingly, I have found that my system sounds better in the dark. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Sept 15, 2021 5:33:19 GMT -5
Lighting doesn't improve the sound, but it doesn't hurt it either. And for many, good aesthetics improve the WAF. So in general, I'd argue that a sense of aesthetics is not inimical to good sound. Boomzilla Interestingly, I have found that my system sounds better in the dark. Wendel Diller - legendary marketing manager for Magnepan - often uses curtains, blindfolds and darkness. He's allegedly said you ALWAYS evaluate crossover capacitors in the dark! I recently did a cheap experiment, hanging a rod and sheer curtains across my Maggies to hide the 77" TV and center speaker. I changed the room lighting so I can't see past the curtain. I'm training myself to stop looking up past the TV and at the center speaker ... to see the image across the middle of the room. With my Rooze setup there is no direct sound coming from anywhere but the side walls when I play 2-channel. It's working.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,960
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 15, 2021 10:14:40 GMT -5
I sort of agree - but "intangibles" is a term that we often overuse when we really mean "things we find difficult to quantify"...
In reality "aesthetics" are not at all "intangible"... I personally like the way real wood veneer with an oiled finish looks on speakers... and I prefer a grille cloth... You may prefer cabinets that are shiny wood grain, or shiny white, or Ferrari red... And you may prefer to see the fronts of your drivers... And some people prefer amplifiers with silver front panels and white lights while many of us prefer black panels and blue lights...
But, while it may be difficult to assign a dollar value to those preferences, they are not at all intangible. In fact they are quite easy to see or describe... The only intangible part is the assignment of value (when we get the one we want) or cost (when we don't get the one we want).
Likewise brand isn't in the least intangible.
It's right there on the name plate. The only thing that's seemingly intangible about it is the value we assign to it. How much value do we give to the fact that it's made here in the USA... or in China? How much does that brand name impress us, or our friends, and how much value do we assign to that? And how much of that is based on real things like resale value? And how much is based on "subconscious factors" like fond memories of the cool stereo that grand-dad had? And, today, we must also include "the herd mentality"... (Would you buy a certain product "because everyone is buying them"? Would you avoid buying one for that reason?)
Again, these so-called "intangibles" aren't really intangibles at all... They're simply things that we tend to ignore - or just avoid looking at in detail.
I do tend to dislike the term "synergy" - particularly when it is applied to audio gear. I might agree that there is "a certain synergy" when my sofa matches the walls, the drapes, and that painting I chose for over the couch. However, when it comes to audio gear, there is a fine line between "two things that works especially well together" and "two things that do a good job of hiding or avoiding each other's flaws".
I would define the first of those two possibilities as "synergy"... But, in the second case, you'd be better off simply avoiding the flaws - that gives you more flexibility to change one of them later without exposing the flaws of the other.
So there's no confusion... I would put "pairing an amplifier that sounds laid back with speakers that are a bit bright" firmly in that second category. You have a flawed amplifier... and flawed speakers... that happen to cover up each other's flaws reasonably well.
And, while this can sometimes be a functional solution, to me it seems more like "hanging a painting over a hole in the wall" rather than "synergy". I'd rather have an accurate amplifier and accurate speakers... that way I can replace either with a different but equally accurate one later... which gives me far more options.
IMO Cost benefit analysis is hard to use it in a hobby where other intangible factors are present. And sometimes those intangibles like brand or aesthetics or "synergy" are more important than cost or complexity considerations. |
|
