[JLM]

I don't get around much, but I always come home to a very satisfying system.  The system includes room treatments and extras to turn my man cave into an audio optimized listening room/office.  Right now I have about $3500 invested in a very simple CD only system, but would like to spend a bit more on room correction/DAC and internet audio streaming. 

Part of the satisfication is putting together a system that does a decent job for any kind of music, but is especially good at the types of genres and audiophile aspects that really push your buttons.  For me, a really good system also has to follow your basic audio tenants.  For me that includes having a proper room, having one amplification channel per driver, having good parts (especially drivers), system synergy, and not writing off deep bass.

I've found that most uber-expensive systems (just like the stuff at the big boxes) are designed to impress and make great eye candy, not convey the heart and soul of the music.  They just do it better.  IME they were developed for the hyper rich who for the most part don't know music/audio very well.

After 30+ years with audio, I'm still optimistic but not very open minded.  It only takes seconds to see or hear most systems to scratch them (and their creators) off my list when they don't follow my audio tenants or have an artificial "hi-fi" sound.

[darrenyeats]

I've always enjoyed a wide range of musical genres. Certainly I got into a rut in the last few years thinking my system sounded good. It was only when visitors came and criticised that I realised what had happened over a period of years.

I was gravitating to certain recordings and musical styles that sounded good on my system.

The biggest jump in SQ was when I started using digital EQ recently. It's been a bumpy ride since I wasn't doing the measurements properly at first. Now that I'm more accurate with measurement, the flat frequency response has been a revelation. Some people comment that a flat response sounds, well, flat and it is true for some recordings they seem to jump out at you less. When this happens you need to increase the volume. BTW some people perceive this as a lack of dynamics but in fact it's the opposite. It is precisely a large dynamic range which allows and demands increased volume. I am not saying digital EQ increases dynamic range but for certain recordings flattening the peaks can make it more pleasant to explore the dynamic range. However, I am now able to listen to all my music, be it 50s Jazz or Kanye West and enjoy it. Before some things sounded good and some things annoyed the hell out of me.

Now I am back listening to all of my music...and surely that's the point of all this equipment.

It isn't the best system I've heard by a long way. The best I've heard is the Linkwitz Orion active loudspeaker. Vocal intelligibility, detail, soundstaging and microdynamics were excellent and on good recordings it created a very good illusion of being there. I liked it
Darren

[JLM]

Good point about getting into a rut.  OTOH blissful ignorance has its advantages.

[Bigfish]

My system is definitely not the best I have ever heard but it sounds the best of all systems I have owned.  Still relatively new to this hobby my impression is that very few people that frequent this Circle have the belief that systems cannot be improved.  I really like the sound my system produces but based on what I have learned from frequenting this board I know the sound can be substantially improved.  I guess this is what makes Audio a hobby, never being totally satisfied, always wanting more!

Ken

[zapper7]

I am humble enough to admit that my brother's system sounds better than mine, and the best I have heard in a house.
Of course he spent 3x the money, has not wife and kids, so I guess he should have it better, right