Home Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

we are very different audiophiles ...

So therefore, we have very different ways of accomplishing our goals, and vastly different ways of building a sound system ... and therefore our experiences within that context cannot be compared. To that end, although we are talking the same audio language, I know that our understanding of this hobby is based on a completely different experiences and accomplishments.

The bottom line, we are arguing the same argument, but from completely different angles.

>>First, I think I was the first to emphasize rock as your primary music reference (based on your Inmate Systems description). It was not intended be a negative. Unfortunately, it became a huge and unnecessary distraction to the discussion.<<

Not your fault Robert, when certain people generalize and improperly assume - then - it becomes "unnecessary distraction to the discussion."

>>Certainly yours is a very high bar but your system is not singular in this regard. There are other systems among Inmates, including yours truly (even in two channel) that exhibit those same traits. My system will exhibit those virtues in 2 channel from 15hz (potentially lower because it's a sealed system) to 40kHz. But so what?<<

Well, you might be surprised, certainly I was ...

This is not about specs, because if it was, near every system would sound identical. This is less about theory, more about experimentation, failure, success, and practicality.

I'll provide an example ...

I've had some pretty good amps over the years, and although I thought that they all brought their own mix of musicality to the class, I really didn't consider the importance of amplification as critically as the above source based components (well, in some regard, I still don't). All these amps were excellent, they all accomplished that required-by-audio-law 20khz to 20hz criteria on paper, and to a degree in practice, they all did just that ... that is ... until I heard amps that redefined that one specific criteria.

Example: I've heard very few amps (and overall systems) that reproduce a cymbal properly, especially a very hard hit cymbal. The true power and shimmer always gets lost, furthermore it diminishes accordingly when a system is required to multitask ... in other words ... to recreate an entire band (or orchestra) with many other instruments all struggling for individuality, tonality, true instrumental power, ambient space and bandwidth.

I "thought" I understood what 20 to 20 meant, I thought I understood extended bandwidth (esp as it relates to dynamic power)... but I didn't ... not until I got the DR3's.

>>Again, this [harmonically consistent even during very difficult passages] a hallmark of my system (even with two channels), too, and others I have heard here in the Bay Area. The point is no matter how good it is I'm sure your system *can* get better; way better.<<

Nope, not that I've heard!

Actually, this is one area in which R&R music is a good test bed. My biggest issue with recreating my stereo system (not just R&R) was based on the criteria above. In the vast VAST (irrespective of cost) majority of systems, when the music builds, becomes more & more dynamic, most start to sound louder, but they close in, they compress the extremes, very few actually expand and become even more powerful & realistic. In those cases, I quickly reach for negative volume.

That's because nearly every system adds it's own form of distortion & compression during peak periods, especially when it's required to recreate many different instruments at full tilt, with all their individual characteristics & power (and R&R is all about emotional power). Very few really can duplicate a live R&R experience.

Robert, to that end ... I've rarely heard ANY system do R&R like mine. Instead of sounding "louder", it builds upon itself, adds power ... very much like a live event. In fact, a great system should INVITE VOLUME. (equipment limitations aside, my system can (and has) destroy speakers/drivers with relative ease - if I'm not careful)

But again ... my system is unique, and it should be better than most, simply because of the amount of refinement it has relieved over many years which were specifically meant to meet specific sonic criteria.

Therefore, as stated in an earlier thread, this is not a case in which I add three extra channels & "additional" equipment ... and then suddenly ... by default of MC ... it would INSTANTLY sound superior.

Without reservation, in my case, it certainly wouldn't, at least not until it was further refined in a matter befitting the rest of my system.

That is why, like I said earlier, I'd build a MC system from scratch.

tb1


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Michael Percy Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.