[Reynolds853]

I continue to struggle with the question how much something "matters" to the sound.  Reviewers (myself included) will often use hyperbole when describing the impact of a change.  I wanted to ground myself in some reality knowing that the complete listening system from the recording to my ears could only reach a maximum of 100% fidelity.  You would base this on 100% of the best you ever experienced... or be very cynical and say how close to reality you got.  I chose the former. 

I built a spreadsheet and forced myself to score all my components.  The "score" is just the subjective measure of how close I think I am to the best I have ever experienced.  As you can see, the recording quality, room and speakers take up the lion's share [I am sure you would not agree with how I weighted each item].  Things get pretty silly when you start talking about isolation gizmos, etc.  Yes, almost anything/everything makes a difference... but scored this way, I can gain some objective perspective on this highly subjective hobby.   

Hope you find this thought provoking.


 

[FireGuy]

Intriguing post.  It represents (IMO) an exercise of that true audiophilic constant; how deep is necessary down the rabbit hole to embrace perfection, assuming it exists.  This is an interesting UOM as I see it.

[Early B.]

The better my system gets, the more significant recording quality becomes. I'd give it a weight of 80%. No matter how good the artist or the song, if it ain't recorded well, I don't want to hear it. It's the bane of being an audiophile.