[jon_010101]

I personally think that after your speakers hit a certain level, the most important investment is the amplification.  CD players are pretty well evolved by now, and some improvements may be had with quality DA conversion (I am drooling over the Cambridge Audio 840C lately).  I'd rather listen to a $80 Best Buy DVD player through my HK Citation II, than a $1000 CD player through a Dynaco ST70.

I would also place my highest recommendation on GR Research / AV123 x-series speakers -- I have yet to find a better speaker for my tastes than the Diluceos I picked up a few years ago.

[BrianM]

I personally think that after your speakers hit a certain level, the most important investment is the amplification.

I suppose this might be true, at least up until the point at which the converse then becomes true...

[Russell Dawkins]

...and I guess ultimately the most significant investment becomes the investment of time to enjoy the fruits of it all.

[EDS_]

I believe our choices are likely driven by the type(s) of music we enjoy the most and how we listen.  I'm a big-time old jazz fan.  And I listen ALOT.  Usually at low volumes.  So, to please me my systems must err to the laid back and relaxed side (lots of tubes, silk/fabric tweeters, slightly relaxed cabling etc.) .  I have listened to and really liked systems in which the speakers weighed-in at 70%+ of total system cost.  Given my biases and preferences I tend to more enjoy systems that are relatively dominated by higher quality front end, preamp, and amp choices.  A dealer here in Texas used to show off an Audio Research system ($30k or so of electronic gear) playing into Pro Ac Tablets or Rega mini-towers.  The yield was spectacular.

[Kevin Haskins]

Get the loudspeakers, and room sorted out first.    It will make your evaluation of the rest of the equipment much easier.

[sunshinedawg]

I have a totally different take on all of this. For me, everything starts with the recording, if it was not recorded well, you can't make it better with your equipment. That being said, there is very little I listen to that just sounds awful, most recordings sound good to me. I just prefer to listen to the reference recorded material, especially unprocessed.

The second most important thing for me is implementation of my stereo setup. That includes speaker setup and additional speakers to recreate early reflections and reverberation. This is the fundamental flaw I personally find with everybody else's system. Every audiophile I've ever met uses an equilateral speaker/listener setup and never(hope I'm not assuming too much here! and If you have taken this in to consideration, I apologize!) stops to think that this kind of setup can't accurately reproduce the recorded event. Trying to portray a point source with a phantom image between 2 speakers gives me a headache. If you think about it, you can't logically have a single source(instrument) coming from two different points in space and expect to fool your ears/brain. Barry Willis wrote in Stereophile Magazine (August, 1994), "The idea that any musical event can be reproduced accurately through a two-channel home-audio system in a room that in no way resembles the space in which the original event took place is ludicrous."

As a side note to number two, I read all the time in these threads how this person likes this dac better than that dac or amp B better than amp D. I just don't get why all the effort goes into this, it is so unimportant for me. To me, these are all just colorizations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people that thinks equipment doesn't make a difference, I just feel these are personal tastes. If you audition something(and think it is a good value) and like it, go ahead and buy it. However, you didn't have a natural, accurate soundfield to begin with, so you are just manipulating the tonal qualities. If the tonal qualities do it for you, fine, but no matter how good the tonal characteristics are for me, they don't make it sound any more real.

The third most important thing for me is room treatment, especially bass. Since most recordings take place in a room bigger than my listening room, I need to tame the characteristics of my small room, since I'm trying to make it sound like I'm somewhere else. Bass is troublesome because it is harder to contain, but this can be achieved with enough bass traps.

The fourth on my list would be speakers. They are more of personal choice, but I prefer really clean highs and tight lows with a lot of dynamics.

The last on my list would be everything else, front end, amplification, cables etc.

I have a simple audio philosophy, I want it to sound like I'm there. Throwing money around on expensive equipment doesn't do it for me. I have heard $200,000 + systems, they don't sound "real." In fact, I rather have a Radio Shack system set up correctly than one of these megabuck rigs in an equilateral formation. Research and understanding of how the human brain/ear mechanism works and how best to get my stereo to recreate the sound field that I hear at a live performance is what does it for me. Usually, the most expensive equipment and ordinary tweaks don't result in a more realistic portrayal for me.

YMMV, this is just my two cents. If you are after "real" you might want to check into some of the ideas I laid out. If you want some really good reference recordings, I really like the Blumlein stuff. Russell Dawkins has some amazing music that he has personally recorded, truly reference material. I also really like the Chesky label, this is all Blumlein material as well.

[OBF]

Third, buy an SPL meter. The Radio Shack SPL meter works and there are calibration files available (PM me) which are absolutely essential to use it properly. A flat frequency response is the first line of attack in achieving a good sound. No it's not the only thing, but you cannot do without it. So measure it. (Interesting comment here: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=46668.msg418653#msg418653.) To fix it do everything possible in the "natural" way with room treatments or by choosing a different speaker.

Fourth, and here is the really controversial part, get some digital EQ.

I'm guessing you're speaking in general terms and not directly to my original post...but considering I currently use a TacT 2.2x I don't think an SPL meter would offer anything additional to taking measurements with a mic and viewing the response in graphical format??  That also covers your digital EQ suggestion as well    Now if I was to sell the TacT to buy a new pair of speakers...then that changes things and I'd have to revert to more traditional methods

Also, I agree with you on the difficulties in comparing digital components sighted and without strict level matching.  It's pretty easy to draw false conclusions with even a small amount of SPL variations.

[OBF]

I might alter my approach if I thought this would be "it" for the system, or if it's an upgrade platform.  If the latter, I would definitely pick one piece to build around.  There's an Almarro dealer in Portland, see if they'll let you try out the 318B integrated amp.  It's right around $2k and could be the launchpad for a killer system in that range.

If there are no upgrades planned for the setup, it still would depend.  If it will be a focused listening station, I would probably go for a more balanced approach.  While the differences with amps/speakers/sources may not be as big as speakers, I feel much of the dissatisfaction audiophiles feel is related to the stuff that's less obvious.

I would consider this to be "it" temporarily as I don't intend to add more $ right now, but in the longer term (year+) it could definitely be considered an upgrade platform if I had some weak links. 

Room is a dedicated "media" room that is used for critical listening (just me in there), movies (2-ch only with front projector) and also party room.  It's the latter use where I think the Ellis speakers need an active crossover for high SPL music and are not perfect for my needs.  So it's not a dead-end living room system, but I think I have your other scenarios rolled into one 

I've heard good stuff about Almarro and it's probably worth checking out just for my own info, but at those prices it would probably have to be used.  I say that because selling my TacT and current amp and buying the 318B + new DAC would not leave enough margin for the speaker "upgrade".

At least with Danny's arrays, the room size, placement, power requirements are pretty well discussed on AC and elsewhere so I feel confident about that....but I still wouldn't be able to hear them first so that's the risk 

[OBF]

The second most important thing for me is implementation of my stereo setup. That includes speaker setup and additional speakers to recreate early reflections and reverberation. This is the fundamental flaw I personally find with everybody else's system. Every audiophile I've ever met uses an equilateral speaker/listener setup and never(hope I'm not assuming too much here! and If you have taken this in to consideration, I apologize!) stops to think that this kind of setup can't accurately reproduce the recorded event. Trying to portray a point source with a phantom image between 2 speakers gives me a headache.

Wow, lot of good stuff in there.  Thanks for taking the time.  Are you running a setup based on Ambiophonic principles?  I did some research on that a while back but it seemed quite complicated to implement.  And placing your speakers close to each other causes a bit of a problem for a mixed AV system like mine.

[darrenyeats]

Now if I was to sell the TacT to buy a new pair of speakers...then that changes things and I'd have to revert to more traditional methods

Right. Budget is always a consideration Also AFAIK TacT is the full DRC shooting match and my personal jury is still out on that one (YMMV).
Darren

[BrianM]

In response to a question about which tradeoffs to make for how much $, it was only a matter of time before someone (sunshinedawg, in this case) would chime in that tradeoffs are to be shunned!

In my opinion no recreated sound approaches sounding "real" until our brain surrenders the dogmatic need for it to sound 100% real.  Once that happens we stand to be much happier about what we're hearing, more often.  That being said, obviously some systems will sound more like live music than others.  But if sunshinedawg has found the Nirvana where, on certain recorded material, his brain need no longer make this basic concession to an illusion, then he's got more money and luck than me, that's for sure.  My own "philosophy" (Keep It Simple Stupid) I suppose is more or less the opposite of what sunshinedawg has laid out, but has afforded a surprising amount of realism in my home.  On good material I can close my eyes and be there.  Am I just less picky?  Or is there maybe a hierarchical competition between the need to experience the music itself vs. the need to exert total control over its reproduction?   

[martyo]

I'm with BrianM on KISS. Get as much speaker as you can, knowing that later you can upgrade your gear and enjoy even better performance from your speakers. So, your 1st option would be my advice.

[BrianM]

And a follow-up that occurs to me, on the topic of realism: something I remember reading on Frank van Alstine's website that struck me at the time, which will strike many as an extraordinary claim about his own amplifiers, no doubt, but here it is.

"They can only be compared with live, and unless the live is very good (and performed without electronic sound reinforcement) our patented Fet Valve designs will actually give you better sound at home than you hear at the performance."

Now this can be true for Frank's gear as well as for many others', or not, as anyone likes. The point is I basically agree with the concept.  A lot of the time, let's face it, live music doesn't sound all that great, for a variety of reasons.  I think I reached the conclusion a long time ago that I'd basically rather hear a symphony or string quartet, or whatever, reproduced as pristinely as possible in my own living room, than I would sit through a live rehearsal of it, with all its attendant anxieties. (Hacking coughs & distant ambulance sirens, anyone? I remember a wonderful church concert that was basically ruined by 1) an obstructed view and 2) a passing unmuffled Harley.)

So while I've heard some great live concerts in my day, I've undoubtedly enjoyed a greater number of more intense musical experiences in my home than in the concert hall.  No, you can't replace the excitement and drama of live music with a recording, but if your main goal is to get inside a piece of music in as intimate a way as possible, I think you're hard-pressed to do better than a great stereo system in a quiet corner of your house.  It may not sound just like live -- but often it will be better than live.

[rklein]

Hi All:

This has been great reading.  Thanks for starting this thread.  It is not my intention to hijack this great thread but as a classically trained musician who plays professionally in a symphony orchestra, I would think that most musicians would disagree with BrianM's statement in regards to recorded music being played back in your home as being better than a live performance.  While it is true that one must put up with a myriad of coughs & hacks or the lady who takes five minutes to "quietly" unwrap her Halls lozenge , it has been my experience that nothing can take the place of a live performance.

I think I reached the conclusion a long time ago that I'd basically rather hear a symphony or string quartet, or whatever, reproduced as pristinely as possible in my own living room, than I would sit through a live rehearsal of it, with all its attendant anxieties.

As a person who has participated in many recording sessions, I must say that in many cases (not all) the goal was to get the recording as Brian puts it, as "pristine" as possible.  The problem with that is that by stopping and starting or redoing a passage over and over certainly will impact the actual music making in a negative way. 

While I agree with Brian that the quality of live performances can be somewhat compromised depending on where you sit in the hall (no the front row is not the best in any hall that I know of), there are many things that are lost when listening to a recording.  The visual aspect, the orchestra playing without a "safety net" that the recording process allows, and the most important point which is the spontaneity of 4 or 8 or 108 musicians playing their a**'s off knowing that the end result could be spectacular or just average.  While a recording can be pristine, a live performance shows all the "nicks, cuts, bruises" in addition to pristine playing.

rklein

[EDS_]

In response to a question about which tradeoffs to make for how much $, it was only a matter of time before someone (sunshinedawg, in this case) would chime in that tradeoffs are to be shunned!

In my opinion no recreated sound approaches sounding "real" until our brain surrenders the dogmatic need for it to sound 100% real.  Once that happens we stand to be much happier about what we're hearing, more often.  That being said, obviously some systems will sound more like live music than others.  But if sunshinedawg has found the Nirvana where, on certain recorded material, his brain need no longer make this basic concession to an illusion, then he's got more money and luck than me, that's for sure.  My own "philosophy" (Keep It Simple Stupid) I suppose is more or less the opposite of what sunshinedawg has laid out, but has afforded a surprising amount of realism in my home.  On good material I can close my eyes and be there.  Am I just less picky?  Or is there maybe a hierarchical competition between the need to experience the music itself vs. the need to exert total control over its reproduction?   

Everyone should read this post twice.  Very nicely put.  For example,  I simply cannot recreate The Dallas Meyerson Symphony Center "space" in my listening room.  No body has the power to fully recreate a orchestra horn section let alone an entire ensemble either (IIRC a single french horn can output 35 equivalent acoustical watts of power a good audio system outputs about 2 or 3 acoustical watts).

[darrenyeats]

On the subject of power, I think it's the energy received at the ears that is important, not the energy put out by the source (whether hifi or real). So a hifi doesn't need to be as powerful as an orchestra for you to hear the same loudness at your ears.

I agree you can't recreate a live event exactly in the home. Another important point is that a lot of music has electronic production which has no live equivalent. This means that personal taste is always going to play a part in choosing what compromises to make.

Nevertheless, accuracy is still an important part of my audio philosophy.
Darren

[sunshinedawg]

Wow, lot of good stuff in there.  Thanks for taking the time.  Are you running a setup based on Ambiophonic principles?  I did some research on that a while back but it seemed quite complicated to implement.  And placing your speakers close to each other causes a bit of a problem for a mixed AV system like mine.

Yes, it's mostly based on ambiophonic/crosstalk cancellation principles. It does take a bit of practice to get it correctly implemented, but in the end it wasn't really that hard. The Tact 2.2xp now has a crosstalk cancellation mode. I read Tact is suppose come out with a unit that would do everything that I talked about.

In response to a question about which tradeoffs to make for how much $, it was only a matter of time before someone (sunshinedawg, in this case) would chime in that tradeoffs are to be shunned!

In my opinion no recreated sound approaches sounding "real" until our brain surrenders the dogmatic need for it to sound 100% real.  Once that happens we stand to be much happier about what we're hearing, more often.  That being said, obviously some systems will sound more like live music than others.  But if sunshinedawg has found the Nirvana where, on certain recorded material, his brain need no longer make this basic concession to an illusion, then he's got more money and luck than me, that's for sure.  My own "philosophy" (Keep It Simple Stupid) I suppose is more or less the opposite of what sunshinedawg has laid out, but has afforded a surprising amount of realism in my home.  On good material I can close my eyes and be there.  Am I just less picky?  Or is there maybe a hierarchical competition between the need to experience the music itself vs. the need to exert total control over its reproduction?   

I am not sure why I would want to surrender the need for it to sound 100% real. I might as well just go listen only to live music at that point. BTW, you don't need 100% once you create the "illusion." Once your ears/brain believe, it need not be perfect, it might not even sound exactly like the place it was recorded, but it will sound like you are at some live hall in the world and that gives you the "feeling of being there." When you close your eyes in your case, you are imagining you are there, your are not getting the same (or ones that approximate the originals very well) sound pressure and spatial clues that would have been received if you were there, like I do.

No, you can't replace the excitement and drama of live music with a recording, but if your main goal is to get inside a piece of music in as intimate a way as possible, I think you're hard-pressed to do better than a great stereo system in a quiet corner of your house.  It may not sound just like live -- but often it will be better than live.

That's just the point for me, it will never be better than live, it gives me a headache. Something in the corner of my house that doesn't use correct psychoacoustics is a waste of time for me.

Hi All:

While it is true that one must put up with a myriad of coughs & hacks or the lady who takes five minutes to "quietly" unwrap her Halls lozenge , it has been my experience that nothing can take the place of a live performance.


rklein

I'm with you there, if I could listen only to unamplified live music........

[BrianM]

rklein-

From one pro musician to another, we agree that nothing takes the place of live.  I think the best live experiences can't be equalled by the best in-home experiences, but that poor live experiences can be easily bettered.  So it's a question of percentages I guess.  I'd never want to do without seeing the orchestra live, of course -- that sound can never be truly replicated by a stereo.  These are somewhat apples vs. oranges comparisons.  When I listen at home, it's all about the piece of music in question.  When I listen live, it's the total experience, with all the visual and temporal stimuli you and I are both familiar with.  Unfortunately for me, my experience with live concerts has been too often marred by audience distractions.  I don't think I can take one more Mahler 2 where something shits on the offstage horn passages!  I say that but I'll keep going back for more.

[rklein]

BrianM-

You are right... poor live experiences can certainly be bettered in an audio way.  Getting back to system philosophy, I find it interesting that most classical musicians I know have GREAT EARS but when it comes to their 2 channel systems, they have the cheapest crappiest sounding gear.   It is very interesting to me what people consider important in assembling their systems.  People with experience in R&R whether playing or listening look for things entirely different than what I might look for being a trained woodwind player.  For me, the midrange and treble need to be as accurate as I can get it without getting a second mortgage on my home or pulling my kids out of college to feed my audio habits   For me, I have always built my systems around the best speakers I could find for the money I had available.

rklein

[BrianM]

I find it interesting that most classical musicians I know have GREAT EARS but when it comes to their 2 channel systems, they have the cheapest crappiest sounding gear.

I would hazard that most classical musicians I know don't listen to much music at all at home, not anyway in the sense of sitting and listening critically.  But the ones who do tend to be pretty hard core about either a) collecting recordings or b) hifi sound.  I've found myself to be an exception to the general rule, IME.

Which raises again an interesting point (for me) -- how being an "audiophile" can often lead you away from the music itself through obsession with other factors.  Back when I was in college I had a crappy "jam box" CD player that sat on the shelf just behind my dorm bed pillow.  Nerd that I was I'd lie there listening for hours on end sometimes, and many of the pieces of music still dear to me today were drummed into me that way.  I was listening to the _music_, and as far as I can remember didn't care a hoot that it bore almost no resemblance to real live sound.  But they were still some of my best listening experiences.  Not only that, even on that POS player I could still hear which were the better sounding recordings!

I suspect many (or maybe even most) classical musicians remain like the guy I was then.  When they replay a piece of music their brains take over and fill in what's missing.  After all, who better than they at knowing how to do just that.  They know from experience...