[Zero]

DISCLAIMER
This thread has been created for fun and fun only! Leave all side commentary and negativity at the door!


Ok, so lets confess it right here and now. While we are all music lovers, we are also audiophiles that appreciate our music played back through high quality electronics. Some of us are deeper into the hobby than others, but one thing remains; there is that special *something* we are looking for in our electronics, a certain aspect of sound reproduction that we value. There are some people who put their priority into huge dynamics, transparency, and hearing every detail that can be extracted from a recording. We then have others that hone in on the mid-range articulation and bloom. Some like their bass, others could live with out. Some like their high end aggressive, others like it to be subdued. Our personal tastes, experiences, music, similarities and differences are the reasons why there is such a huge variety of electronics available on todays market!

So for the sheer fun of it all; share your personal 'bias'! What is it that YOU look for in a music-making system? What do you value, and what can you live without if you had to?

[arthurs]

okay, I'll play 

Proper sense of space and imaging
Dynamic but not overbearing
Transparence with a touch of cream
Good pace
Goosebump factor (quoting Danny)

[jeffreybehr]

My preferences are mostly tonal--compared with frequency response that's 'accurate' and measures 'flat', I need less treble, some warmth, and a few dBs more bass.  That bass must be tuneful, well defined, and extended well into the 20s.  Dynamically, I prefer less dynamic range than most recordings give me.  I need my speakers and room to throw a big, spacious soundstage with excellent center focus...I guess some would call that center focus good imaging.

My amplification electronics are all triode with the poweramps being SETs--for me triodes simply get the music 'righter' than other vacuumtubes and especially than transistors.  Frontend stuff is all digital and solidstate.  System is multichannel with diffuse-sounding surround speakers.

See my system at http://cgim.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/vs_user.pl?vdone&1126390461&viewmine&publ .

[nathanm]

A wide and enveloping soundstage that doesn't beam.  Thick, tight bass that sounds like a river of molten sludge poured into the room (when the recording calls for it).  I'd also like for the sound to come further forward but perhaps this effect is in conflict with the less-directional speakers I seem to be drawn to.  Hmm.  I've only heard a really three-dimensional sound one time, but it wasn't my system and I have no idea how to recreate that.  I prefer width to depth, though.  If the speakers are too close together I can't stand it.  There's gotta be that magical hole from whence the music comes, but you aren't looking at anything.

[timind]

After much trial and error I have come to realize I prefer a smooth, warm sound over shimmering detail. It took a while to find this out. This must be achieved without tubes though as I prefer turning on my equipment and not fiddling with it. As for equipment, simplicity sums up my philosophy there. If interested check my system here http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vbudg&1159111949&view

[Zero]

I suppose this is only fair if I participate as well!

I’ve developed an acute taste for a speaker that’s free of its own physical barrier. Translated; I like a holographic sound-stage that is very wide and deep. It also must be capable of producing an excellent center stage. I don't want an indistinct wall of sound; I want a sound-stage that can render what I hear in nature.

tone is the most important aspect of a system for yours truly. A system can measure ruler-flat, but if its incapable of capturing the tone and subsequent character of an instrument(s) or vocalist- I’ve got no interest.

- I much prefer full-range systems
- I enjoy transparency, but not at the expense of enjoying less than perfect recordings
- I really enjoy a system that sports excellent low level resolution
- I don’t need a system that can go painfully loud – but it is a nice bonus
- I really enjoy a system capable of effortless dynamic contrasts
- I usually end up preferring systems with a “mid-hall” perspective
- I like my high end to sparkle, not beam.
- I like my mid-range to be lush and rich, with good weight and punch
- I like my bass. It doesn’t have to be super fast. It does need to have tone and texture
- I like a system capable of playing any kind of music. I don't care for one trick ponies

Over-all, I enjoy a semi-laid back presentation. Call me a romantic. Heck, call me what you will - but I've never been one to get front row-center seats even at un-amplified venues. I like sitting off in the distance a bit - absorbing the experience in a more calm manner. I really could care less what takes me there, so long as I get there. Horns? Dynamic cones and domes? Ribbons? Electrostatics? Class A, Class A/B, Class D, Vacuum tube, SET,…  makes no difference to me. Part of the fun is in the adventure.

[ToddArthur]

Clean clear highs, balanced open midrange and solid bass all presented in a deep and wide soundstage.  You should be able to hear the differents layers of information  on well recorded music like Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms". 

[gprro]

analog like, full bodied but with impact, dynamics and detail. good staging and imaging, In the chest punchy bass when needed, but you usualy only get that at concerts when the kick drum is miked heavy. I've yet to hear or feel a home system with that kind of bass power, probably because it would sound crappy with most music.

[Early B.]

My preferences are mostly tonal--compared with frequency response that's 'accurate' and measures 'flat', I need less treble, some warmth, and a few dBs more bass.  That bass must be tuneful, well defined, and extended well into the 20s.  Dynamically, I prefer less dynamic range than most recordings give me.  I need my speakers and room to throw a big, spacious soundstage with excellent center focus...I guess some would call that center focus good imaging.

These statements pretty much nail it for me, as well. The essential ingredient is TONE.

[boead]

My preferences are mostly tonal--compared with frequency response that's 'accurate' and measures 'flat', I need less treble, some warmth, and a few dBs more bass.  That bass must be tuneful, well defined, and extended well into the 20s.  Dynamically, I prefer less dynamic range than most recordings give me.  I need my speakers and room to throw a big, spacious soundstage with excellent center focus...I guess some would call that center focus good imaging.

My amplification electronics are all triode with the poweramps being SETs--for me triodes simply get the music 'righter' than other vacuumtubes and especially than transistors.  Frontend stuff is all digital and solidstate.  System is multichannel with diffuse-sounding surround speakers.

I couldn’t agree more.


I also started asking myself this question; is there such thing as too much detail? A simple answer to a broad question – for me, yes.

I’ve always been intolerant of loud noises and excessive volume although I’ve been told my whole life that I speak loudly and forcefully. Sort of ironic. So I generally don’t like loud or very dynamic sound and combine excessive levels of detail just makes for a less musical and distracting presentation for me.

I also really like sub woofers with subtle attenuation.

[mca]

I suppose this is only fair if I participate as well!

Your comments on system sound mirror mine exactly

What is your system composed of and does it provide the sound you described?

[flintstone]

Must be fullrange, musical, and have excellent tone. Not as important...imaging, and the ability to play "LOUD".

My system....Apogee Duetta Signature speakers, VMPS subwoofers, Audioprism Mantissa preamp, Kinergetics transport,  Monarchy M24 DAC, Rogue Audio M-120 Magnum amps have all of the above covered, including the not important areas....(a freebe for me).


Dave

[Soundbitten]

Dynamic and multi-dimensional .

[TONEPUB]

I guess after about 35 years of this, going back and forth with almost
one of everything, I really find that I prefer the electrostatic panel sound
with a good sub the best.

I know that this setup has it's flaws, but it's my favorite and what I keep
coming back to.

There is a lot of great stuff out there in all configurations, but for whatever
reason this one does it for me best!  I've had one of just about every
electrostatic, ribbon and Magnepan, but my new Martin Logan Summits do the job!

But I still have a pair of Apogees that I think are very cool too!!

Honestly, I never met a panel I didn't like!!

[doug s.]

i want it all - 3-d soundstaging, dynamics, true full-range, detail, & accurate tonality.

doug s.

[Zero]

MCA - You have good taste.    In all honesty, I go through so many piece of electronics that it would be nearly pointless to list the current system, as it will most likely be different next month. The only piece that has stayed within my system are a pair of inexpensive two-way towers from Totem Acoustic, the Sttaf.  Put them in a small room and give em warm sounding gear and it will get what I described above. Like Jeff, I enjoy panels and electrostatics - which I also feel can achieve the same goal. I'd love to get the Summit - but at the same time I feel thats the level I'd need to go for a worthwhile (to my ears and wallet) improvement - and well, I ain't got da green for that.

[JLM]

Musicality, tone, coherency, full range, and imaging are my priorities in that order.

Musicality transforms pencil sketches into colored paintings.  Tone is what makes it possible to distinguish one violin or piano from another.  Coherency provides focus and eliminates dis-jointedness.  Full range means the 9 octaves from 30 - 15,000 Hz (bass is foundational).  Imaging (each instrument/vocalist correctly sized/located in 3 dimensions) is really a cornerstone for entry level high end audio.


Frequency extremes and detail can both be two edged bonuses. 

Too much high frequencies can be a "hoot" but quickly become fatiguing.  Too much bass can also be fatiguing and cause all kinds of nasty sympatheic resonances.  Excessive detail (as found in many current recordings) forces the mind into analytical mode and can quickly make poor quality recordings of good music unlistenable.  It's these parameters that lead to the quandary of picking between a great system with a few enjoyable recordings or a lackluster system with tons of recordings that are listenable.


IMO speakers define these qualities more than any other link in the audio chain (from mike to ear).  Thats why I'm a "speaker guy".

[The_KiD]

I strive towards musicality with a little bass tonal weight which has not always been the case.  I do like to hear the details but I like them sweet and on the laid back side of things. I have owned dozens of setups over the years and my current system configuration is definitely my favorite as you can play anything on it and it sounds great. I listen to a lot of Rock & Roll and Rockabilly which is not always recorded well so musicality is important to me. Not to mention, it must able to be turned up to "11" on occasion and sound great.

The Sonus Fabers paired with the Unico SE is a Match made in heaven for my tastes..

Cheers,

Chris

[Thebiker]

I agree with The_KiD .

Musicality with detail, but not detail in my face.  Solos should be that, but mostly music should be a whole experience.  If I choose to listen for individual instruments, I want to be able to pick them out and listen primarily to them, but by choice, not because any one aspect is overbearing.

It should be sweet, full and able to handle any type of music that I'm in the mood for, from rock to blues to chamber to jazz to Native American flute.

My 2 primary amps are a Stingray and a Cary SLI-80, both run in the triode mode.....IMHO detail & sweetness are there, especially with the Cary.

For a frame of reference for those who know the building, my fave seat for the Boston Symphony is first balcony, first row, center.  All the music, but not in my face .

[oracle309]

my sound is , well, my sound . As I have no way of knowing what others hear, that makes it all unique to me (too bad we couldn't all do custom frequency sweeps of our hearing and have custom electronic hearing aids developed so that we all heard the same, then this would all REALLY mean something)...

Pace, Rythm, Attack and Timing, the original intent of the "PRAT" acronym, not the PRaT one.
I like bass, but have never been able to afford GOOD bass, so I live without (although one day soon I hope to have taken care of this).

"Soundstage" and all it encompasses is "bonus" to me. Once the PRAT conditions are met, generally tonality is taken care of (at least in my experience). The ability to have speakers "disappear" is pretty interesting and is a statement of the quality of enclosure construction, and either a sympathetic vibration profile within the system or lack of any that are meaningful, I think.

One of the most important criterion for me is the sense of "EASE" in which a system conveys its message of music. I don't mean muted or pulled back. I mean the lack of false dynamics (which is how many FM stations create a dynamic sound). For lack of a better discriptor or discription , I'll use one I have used in the past, and maybe a few others:

It's like hearing  (and perhaps seeing), good musicians at complete ease with their instruments. No need to show off at all. BB King, Eric Clapton, and others. I'm sure Eddie VanHalen, once the showmanship is removed would be the same. Or driving in a car the accellerates like a jet airplane (600 lbs-ft of torque... ), not like a high revving Honda, or Ferrarri or Porche, etc, more like a 500 cu inch BBC pulling a 3000# car down the road (and I have nothing against "show offs" now and again). There is something appealing to me knowing that if called upon a system (whether audio, or cars or whatever) can do the job IF pushed