System Priorities: What Are Yours??

I'm quite sure that most of us would like to have systems that reproduce music in an as accurate and realistic manner possible. In the real world though most of us have to make concessions. There are many ways to assemble a sound system to a particular budget as that is usually the limiting factor. I also think that most of us are aware of trying to have a balanced system.

It is well understood also that a system can be likened to a link chain. You can have a great front end and speakers but, your amplification could drag the whole system down to its level if it is below par. The same can be said for any other component in the system although you can spark a great debate as to which are the "most important".

Having said all the above unless you have almost unlimited funds, assembling a system that can reproduce a live musical event in your home space can be a difficult proposition indeed. This leaves us with choices as to what we individually consider the most important attributes and objectives of our own systems taking into account financial limitations.

I consider lifelike reproduction levels and dynamics as well as resolution and "musicality" as my objective in my "main" system. Unfortunately this approach ups the price of all the "links in the chain" so to speak.

I can see assembling a high quality mini-monitor "near field" alternate system sometime in the future if space will allow. A system like this can be just as rewarding to listen to but you do your listening in a very different way and space.

What about you? What are your system objectives/priorities?

 

I wonder if that's interchangeable with what I term 'Musicality" or sounding like music rather than having the signature of the medium imposing on the sound to a degree that can be bothersome (noticed). In other words the results sound like the source, not a copy. EG: the guttural edge of Dylan's voice that is unmistakable when you hear all the "shadings".

 

I also love what I call a musically acurate or pleasant sounding system. To me, this means a balanced and evenly spread out frequency response (without heavy emphasis of either the highs, mids or lows) and accurate imaging and soundstaging. I have a small room and have had to give up on the deepest bass but very much enjoy what I have put together over the years.

On well recorded lps or cds, I can attain a sense of "being there" on live recordings.

 

My next priority is to assemble some kind of surround home theater setup...mainly for movies. Since I want only one main system, I'm also going to be working in some way to use my good analog components for two-channel playback, but be able to easily switch to full-blown surround when it's movie time.

While I have a ton of gear (every imaginable recording format except for Elcaset and DCC, old processors and EQs), I keep things very simple today. I'll never be able to afford the Martin Logan speakers I always wanted (and the good electronics needed to drive them), but I'm pretty much pleased with my system now.

 

Say, boss o' the sonic sauce - since we gotta lotta new folks joining allla the time, mebbe you could define for us what you mean by tonality. What's yer frame of reference for the tonality beast of which you speak???

 

This is from Steve's homepage interview archive. Is this what you are asking about?
-------------------------------------------------


Questions for Steve Hoffman:

How exactly do you define "tonality"? (Presupposing it's possible to do the description justice in words).

I have a good sense of "tone" with regards to the sound of a guitar. But I have a bit more trouble grasping the concept of "tonally correct" when it comes to mastering a recording of an entire band.

Speaking of guitar tone, I heard the DCC Elvis 24K CD today. The guitar tone on "Little Sister" is wicked cool!

That guitar sound on Elvis' "Little Sister" is the late Hank Garland playing a 1961 Fender (white cream) Jazzmaster through a Tweed Fender bassman amp, cranked. The recording engineer told me he had never heard a guitar that loud in RCA's Nashville Studio before. Amazing guitar tone, considering Hank Garland hadn't even seen (let alone played) a Jazzmaster guitar before that session. He just made that riff up on the spot, too! I love stories like that.

Tonality, the way I mean it in this context is like the following:

When I feed music into a digital machine, I expect it to have the same exact tonal balance when it comes back out. It's that simple. In other words, exactly the same freq. response, same dynamics, etc. Doesn't matter what the ACTUAL tonality of the master tape is. Could be Yoko Ono screaming for all I care. It MUST sound the same when it is spit back out again. It must also sound the same when it comes back from the manufacturing plant on a CD or SACD or WHATEVER.

So to recap, the tonality of the LP or CD or whatever must match the tonality of the source (master tape). If it doesn't, how the heck can a mastering engineer control what happens after manufacture? (Actually, we have ways, but that's another story)..

At other times, when I refer to tonality, I usually mean that either a master tape, or a pair of speakers or amps or guitar amps or whatever, has a "pleasing" tone. Or, to put it more directly, a tonal spectrum that I (Steve H.) likes. Not too much, this or that, just a natural "occurs in nature" sound. Even if it comes from a totally synth source. Our ears want to hear "natural". Anything else is just a mere recording...

 

Neutrality, which essentially goes hand in hand with proper tonality.

While I feel somewhat close to neutral, I have some changes planned that oughta get me nicely centered. It'll take time, though...


__________
AC

 

Musicality... musicality... musicality

 

Give me that beautiful breath of life mid-range brother! I also try for a very neutral sound. The next upgrade phase for me will be to get a tube amp into my chain as I've pretty much achieved SS nirvana ie. clean flowing very transparent highs, full bodied, but not obese, very defined mid-range, and extremely detailed and very fluid bass response and all with a really good sound-staging. I need to bring my wattage down and my volume up. Perhaps if I really like the tube amp, and I'm pretty sure I will, I'll get a tube preamp.

...And then I'll start preparing the divorce proceeding's

 

I think the most relevant metric for tonality is the flatness of frequency response in an audio system. The biggest errors in this regard usually occur in loudspeakers.

 

I think a lot of the above responses point out why you can set up a really satisfying sound system for a relatively reasonable cost as long as you're not trying to reproduce concert levels.

You could base the system on something like a pair of LS3/5a mini-monitors, a system that has one of the absolutely most realistic mid ranges ever, a good quality high current capability integrated amplifier and a decent front end. The whole thing could probably be done under $5K new and even less used. Most people could live very happily with a system like that.

 

I look for a totally flat frequency response along with a neutral presentation that allows the music to come through uncolored and unimpeded.

 

Well gee, I just want something that sounds good! (And big!)

 

I aim for something just a bit more "illuminated" than reality, without being harsh or etched or muddy; that's what seems to draw me into the music more. Essential also is accurate bass response down to at least the mid 20s. The midrange can be as beautiful as all get out, but if there's no bottom, it won't do it for me.

As to tonality, it is important, but mostly so that the two "halves" of my system--analog and digital--are essentially the same in tone in order to make it less jarring when switching between the two formats. I have both the DCC CD and LP of Hotel California, and use a combination of interconnects, cartidge loading, and tubes to tune the balance. I can attest to Steve's skill: when all is said and dialed in, the tonality of the DCC CD vs. the DCC LP is fundamentally the same.

 

My priorities are simply to increase my personal enjoyment quotient (PEQ) - I have no real method to my madness (although I have plenty of madness in my method) [for some reason OO programmers in days of old use to chortle when I said that ]. I like having alternatives that I can listen to, such as different cartridges for vinyl - I don't think one style sounds better than another just different and some days one has ahigher PEQ than another

A simple man easily pleased

All the best - Andrew

 

My priority for my speakers is great midrange. I can live with lack-of-bass (although i don't have to now), for a rich midrange.

My brain can "fill-in" the missing lower octaves or even bass punch, but the vocal region and guitar frequencies are crucial to me. I like a thick (lotsa weight), rich midrange sound that flows well at low volumes. I could care less about reproducing at concert-hall or rock arena levels.

 

Yes, LS35a's also have amazing imaging/soundstaging. They're perfect if you don't have a lot to spend or if you don't have much space.........
The Everly Brothers on DCC sounds amazing on these babies.

-Wes

 

This is also what I desire. I have no use for euphonic, or tweaked sound.

 

I don't see myself spending any significant money in equipment until I am able to build a dedicated room.

My hardware priorities until the room materializes are to finish my Teres, a second Nakamichi amp for the rear speakers, 4 smallish speakers and some treatment for my living room.

Finishing the Teres involves a new tonearm, new cart and a new phono preamp. My current tonearm doesn't match my Teres design. An used Naka PA Series amp goes for 500 US$ or so and four small speakers should be about 4K, two on stands and two on-wall.

A cheap Sony SACD/dts CD player would be immediate after the above. Little money.

Other ongoing projects include a cleaning machine (The Viennese), a tangencial turntable, and an Lp-2-CD setup.

My preferences, and I avoid thinking about these things are:

1) Airy highs, dullness and compression distracts and bothers me.

2) Clear midrange, honkiness and the menace of impending distortion destroys my enjoyment.

3) Non-muddy bass. Would rather have less but delineated than deep and muddy.

 

In a word, the highest priority in my system is software. I don't think there's many of us who would disagree that without the music we like best, whatever it is, the hardware isn't worth a darn. A magnificently recorded Mozart symphony in multi-channel SACD isn't going to move me as much as bootleg Albert Ayler heard over a mini system in someone's college dorm room. I've found that I listen more closely to bootlegs and by using my imagination to fill in the blanks I actually have a more interesting experience in some ways than I do listening to a well made recording played back on good equipment. It forces me to me focus on the music and 'be there'.
As far as the sound goes, I like a balanced and neutral playback that's transparent. Equipment-wise that means having well matched components that are properly placed in a good acoustical space. Most homes really don't have one that's well proportioned with the doors and windows in the right places. In my current home I'm lucky to have an almost ideal room in size and shape. I'm pleased to see that a number of contributors to this thread have mentioned the listening room itself as being a high priority.

 

That's exactly how I feel! Everything flows from the quality of the software. garbage in -> garbage out. I've been sinking my bread into out-of-print CDs and will battle the hardware demons when the time comes. Although, my aim is going to be the most for the least. I don't think my ears are sensitive to the nuances of, say, cables, but we'll see.

 

As you upgrade your hardware you may find that there is a definite and audible "signature" to cables. That doesn't mean that you have to run around trying tons of different ones but, different manufacturers have a their own variations. I know, cables aren't supposed to have any sound of their own but in this world, nothing is perfect and they do. Called it designed and controlled imperfection tailored to what each manufacturer thinks is "right".
Another aspect is the synergy of the cables with different equipment. This makes it all the harder to match thus requiring more experimentation. The key here is finding something (sonic signature: eg: warmth, smoothness) you like and sticking to it otherwise you'll go nuts always trying to find something "better". In my case I happen to like Cardas cables but, that's a matter of personal choice.

 

You are very wise, Khorn.

I have been stuggling with cables for several years, having discovered some time ago that a few of my most advanced audiophile friends roll their eyes and smile whenever someone talks about spending hundreds, if not thousands, on boutique cables. Four of my most trusted audio buddies are using interconnects that cost substantially less than $100, and the one who brings the average that far up is beginning to see (hear) the light. While the statement is hackneyed, the perfect component IS the proverbial straight wire with gain. Why anyone would want to throw a monkey wrench into the project of reaching that goal by using some fancy cable with a "house sound" is beyond me. It's bad enough that we have to deal with the differences in the sound of equipment (ideally, it should all sound the same. There are several methods of acheiving a unique sound in the cables that different manufacturers want you to buy at outrageous prices, but they all boil down to distinct measurements in capacitance and/or impedance.

The interconnects I am currently using were made with stock twisted pair cable from an electronics supplier. The wire cost me 18¢/foot. After discussions with friends in the recording and audio design business about how to select the proper RCA connectors for this wire, I followed their recommendations to AVOID all-metal plugs (they are more conducive to RF) and bought the cheap plastic ones that Radio Shack sells. A few friends of mine and I then compared them to Nordost Quatro Fils, XLO Signature, Harmonic Technology and Homegrown Audio Silver Lace. Only one refused to accept his own choice of the cheap cable offering the most natural sound (when he found out that he was comparing $4.00 worth of wire and plugs to a $1600 boutique cable), dismissing them as a fluke, and revising his original description of their sound.

My next step is to rid my system of the boutique speaker cables I use. If I am successful at finding THE RIGHT stock wire that is less colored than what I have in there now, I will have been successful at making my system as neutral as possible.

One other forum member mentioned the word, neutral, which just about covers it. If your system is neutral, your sound is as good as it can get.