[James Tanner]

Hi All,

I have been thinking about this issue and the so called 'compatibility' of audio gear. Things like 'can't use this speaker' with this 'amp' or this 'cable' etc. The assumption going forward with this discussion though is that all of the products are well designed quality products and there are not blatant electrical or mechanical issues to prevent reasonable integration -- ex tube pre amplifier that needs a specific load on the power amp input or speaker with an impedance curve that looks like a roller coaster.

I guess what bothers me the most are sweeping statements like product 'A' will not work with product 'B'. I have set up demo systems in hundreds of rooms with hundreds of different products around the world over the many years I have been doing this. If there is one thing I have learned it's that the room/speaker interface is far more critical than any specific well designed piece of electronics vs. another.  I am not saying that gear does not sound different, I am saying that the room/speaker interface will swamp out many of the subtleties or nuances that one product has relative to another. When it comes to loudspeakers the differences between speaker A and speaker B in a specific room can easily go from 'I hate this' to 'sonic bliss' with small movements in speaker positioning. Even speakers from the same manufacturer can sound wholly different in the same room with the same front end. I have heard similar systems at one show and came away impressed only to hear it a year later at another show and been surprised at how differently it performed.

I have over the years been involved with distributing a number of speaker lines. One of the exercises I would always go through when setting up at a show is start with the biggest speaker in the lineup and work my way down to the smallest.  There would always be one of the speakers that would just seem to 'click' with the room and of course that was the speaker we would use for that particular show. Hi-end audio products -- especially speakers - have huge personality differences compared to quality electronics but generally the ability of the person doing the setup and their ability to know when its correct is the more critical factor. So speaker 'A' being a dipole will present a totally different setup proposition than an Omni-directional or Point Source speaker. So what gets chastised as an incompatibility between components is more often really more a matter of not understanding the speaker room interface issue.

I think that for many of us audiophiles the integration of our current system in our specific room is the overall riding factor when assessing one product vs. another. I think that's why you can have such widely divergent opinions when it comes to what becomes the favorite of a particular audiophile vs. another. I use to have one sound room and if people criticized the sound I was heartbroken because in my mind this was the 'world's best' --- so get lost aye. Anyway, about 5 years ago I setup 3 different systems (kids moved out - thankfully wife stayed) in three different rooms and I used exactly the same front end in each. The only variable was the speaker and the amp used to drive the speaker properly. It taught me a lot. Whereas in the past I would attempt to defend my current system I realized that each of the 3 systems offered qualities in some ways very different from one another and in some ways very similar. It opened my mind to the fact that speaker/room interaction is by far the more critical dimension when assessing a product. I could enjoy each system in different ways and there was no one clear 'best'.

This is not to say that a specific product can not be assigned a 'sonic personality' that will transfer from room to room and setup to setup. A good example of this would be Bryston itself. We have received rave reviews over the past few years at many of the audio shows from reviews and audiophiles alike on how great a specific system sounded. So 'The Maggie Mystery System' in Vegas in 09, the Thiel 3.7 system in Vegas in 08, the CLX Martin Logan system in Montreal in 09, the travelling road show put on by PMC in England etc. all got very high praise indeed from those who listened.  So my point is that here we have the same electronics being used (Bryston) in a variety of environments with a variety of different speakers all with excellent sonic results. That speaks well for the products involved but more so for the people who dialed them in to sound that way.

So the point of all this ramble I guess is that it is certainly true that although products can be assigned a specific sonic signature what is far more important is how those products get integrated with each other to provide a musical and sonically superior result rather than product A is superior to product B or product A should not be used with product B. Compatibility has a lot to do with the listening room /loudspeaker interface and the ability of each person to setup his or her system in the way that allows the integration of the speakers, the room and the electronics to coalesce in a favorable way.

I have said for years that the 'demo is everything' and I judge a system based on how it performs in a given environment. My hat goes off to whomever the person was that made it work.

James

[werd]

Hello folks

I agree that room acoustics play a big role in the way we critique gear. However i feel its a distant second to the poorly  engineered digital frontends that we have had to suffer through since the advent of cd. Cd players were in mass production long before anyone had a PC and TT was basically out. There really wasnt much knowledge or respect given in the engineering up until about the late 90's and around 2000. This major malfunction of engineering played the biggest role in how we bandaided our systems to overcome the horrible high freq problems plagueing cd recording and playback. Here lies the incompatibility issues that can make us so outspoken on our gear. The amp doesnt work with this pre. Or this cd doesnt work with this amp..... and so and so on. We are in a new era for digital playback and its sounding good. Its taken solid state to new levels.

that a buck and a half will get you on the bus

[twitch54]

I agree that room acoustics play a big role in the way we critique gear. However i feel its a distant second to the poorly  engineered digital frontends that we have had to suffer through since the advent of cd. Cd players were in mass production long before anyone had a PC and TT was basically out.

And for those of us that NEVER gave up on quality analog front ends it was never relegated to second fiddle, room acoustics that is !

[werd]

I agree that room acoustics play a big role in the way we critique gear. However i feel its a distant second to the poorly  engineered digital frontends that we have had to suffer through since the advent of cd. Cd players were in mass production long before anyone had a PC and TT was basically out.

And for those of us that NEVER gave up on quality analog front ends it was never relegated to second fiddle, room acoustics that is !

I agree.... but those that got sucked into the convenience of cd playback (me) had to continualy bandaid and color their playback to tame those harsh highs. Revealing gear matched with a lousy frontend always lead to fingerpointing and fueled the whole notion of gear compatibility.

[danman]

I was actually thinking about this today when auditioning the CLX. The sound room was recently done in his store but in the room, I noticed a slight echo and with dipole speakers, that can be a pain. Actually it was not too bad but sound treatments would of made the experience even better. However, I don't think he is finsihed. Definately an important factor to consider when using high quality products.

[twitch54]

werd, FWIW, I didn't jump on the digital bandwagon untill the mid-eighties. the early problems were not all in the CDP's themselves, plenty of poorly and improperly master Cd's hurt evry bit as much. There were those (Sheffied Labs, GRP, DMP, some Telarc, Ame Gramaphone) that did get it right though.

My first competent CDP was my Calafornia Audio Labs, circa 1990. It's still performing admirably in my sons system out in Colorado.

[JackD201]

Hi James,

I agree wholeheartedly that getting a system to gel takes time, patience and know how. Great set up guys can literally make silk purses out of sow's ears. Well, maybe not. They can however make them over achieve. I don't buy into compatibility vs. incompatibility in absolute terms then. I think some thinks are just easier to make work together from the get go but ultimately all major distractions can be dealt with while enhancing combined strengths . My personal philosophy is to match a system and room to such an extent that music lovers can forget the system while agitating "sonic junkies" because they can't figure out what piece of gear is doing what.

I've always liked Bryston and if you weren't already so ably represented here by AV Driver. I would have picked you guys up. Congratulations on your new gem of a CDP.

Jack

[James Tanner]

Hi James,

I agree wholeheartedly that getting a system to gel takes time, patience and know how. Great set up guys can literally make silk purses out of sow's ears. Well, maybe not. They can however make them over achieve. I don't buy into compatibility vs. incompatibility in absolute terms then. I think some thinks are just easier to make work together from the get go but ultimately all major distractions can be dealt with while enhancing combined strengths . My personal philosophy is to match a system and room to such an extent that music lovers can forget the system while agitating "sonic junkies" because they can't figure out what piece of gear is doing what.

I've always liked Bryston and if you weren't already so ably represented here by AV Driver. I would have picked you guys up. Congratulations on your new gem of a CDP.

Jack

Thank you Jack for your kind words - it's always rewarding to hear that our efforts are appreciated.

james