How Did Your System Come Into Being?

[Bob]

Since the "Do all amps sound the same?" thread stopped being about amps a long time ago. I thought it might be interesting for us to discuss how we each made our purchasing decisions. Let's keep price out of the discussion, I think it is a given that all of us have either budget restrictions or restraints.

I had cobbled together music systems for many years, decades really. Mostly because I never took the reproduction of music all that serious, just liked having a audio system to listen to.

Once I became serious about it (and giving up HT). But, not as serious as some, since it comes last in regards to my hobbies. I started visiting audio dealers all over the U.S. Since my work meant traveling, I was able to hear a lot of equipment in a lot of showrooms. My first quest was speakers. I found that I was consistantly drawn to 3 brands regardless of what electronics were in the front end and regardless of room acoustics. They were very different in how they sounded. Two were very dynamic, audiophile type speakers, one is considered sorta on the plain vanillia side by many. I ended up likeing the plain vanillia the best. It took a lot of listening to make a decision. In the end I choose Vandersteen.

The front end was more difficult. I tried to find one brand that could do it all, in the end I came back to a mix and match system. All the components were chosen using ABX testing. First in a showroom then a long trial at home. I would bring home one brand and spend some time with it and then overlap that with another. The big surprise to me was that I changed amps. I was very convinced that my Theta Dreadnaught was as good as a amp needed to be. I had demoed many amps against it over the years and always had kept it. Unfortunately for my wallet, a pair of tube mono blocks knocked it off its throne.

[big_ezy]

"All the components were chosen using ABX testing."

Really? It seems to me that setting up true ABX testing is a pretty laborius task and would not be readily available. Did you really mean that you tested the components by listening to them individually and then randomly without knowing which was playing?
Were the components carefully calibrated to eliminate measurable differences in volume?

My point is that ABX testing is a very rigorous system to set up and I would be surprised to learn that showrooms are really set up to perform that kind of testing and particularly surprised that you could set it up at home.

Earl

[AptosJeff]

... The big surprise to me was that I changed amps. I was very convinced that my Theta Dreadnaught was as good as a amp needed to be. I had demoed many amps against it over the years and always had kept it. Unfortunately for my wallet, a pair of tube mono blocks knocked it off its throne.

Yea, you have to listen!
I had my much esteemed tube monoblocks knocked off by a class A SS amp.

[Bob]

Big ezy,
no, nothing like you described. Except for the pre amp and the cables. My dealer has all his front end and source components on shelves along a side wall. Cables go out the wall into a closet so that he does switch things without you knowing what is being used. It was handy for listening to several cables. However, I did know when he was changing preamps and which preamps were being tested.
When I said ABX testing I simply meant that at some point I had the opportunity to listen against other components that I liked in my home. I agree that a blind random ABX test would be rigorous and more than I would want to put myself through.
I simply meant that I used my ears for the decisions.

[big_ezy]

Bob...I think I should probably apologize for the tone of my post. I was still feeling a little prickly about how Ade was treated in the other thread. I am one who doesn't know if amps really sound different or if we hear what we want or expect to hear. I do, however believe in the scientific method and find the criticisms of the double-blind test method unconvincing.

I certainly believe it is appropriate to use your ears for your buying decisions. I also believe it is easy for our ears to be confused by other inputs.

Bottom line is that I have a lot to learn and will try to be as open minded as possible. In the other thread misterdoggie equated higher price to higher sound quality. While I believe that is possible I certainly don't think it is automatic. A corollary with which I suppose I agree with a caveat is "you get what you pay for". The caveat is that what you get may not be all sound quality. What you pay for may be more expensive marketing programs, cosmetics, higher profit margins and status to name a few.

Enjoy your listening!

Earl

[Bob]

I guess AB testing is the correct term I should have used, I didn't realize that ABX meant blind testing.
Price, in regards to the front end, usually does mean better audio quality. Up to a point. Some examples are:

More robust power sources or seperate power sources tend to increase sound quality, and expense.
Internal isolation can sometimes help sound quality and adds to cost.
How far a manufacturer goes to eliminate the possibility of RF contamination adds to cost, and in the case of a phono amp, or pre amp this can make a very big difference.
It is more costly when the manufacturer buys tubes or electronic parts in bulk, then tests and discards those that aren't up to their specs.
Hand wiring and point to point wiring is costly and can help sound.

However, in some cases the price's can't be justified. They are for cosmetics, b.s., or just because. And there is a absolutely a point, not just of diminishing returns but, no improved sound quality returns. Some very expensive electronics may have a lot of R&D, a lot of hands on manufactureing cost, a lot of expensive cosmetics but, without any significant difference in sound quality.

Amps, cables, and speakers seem to be the three components they often can't justify their cost. They may have high manufacturing and r&d cost but, with either no discernable increase in sound quality, miniscule increase in sound quality or even sound awful.

The other two components that can have huge price tags are cartridges and turntables. Unlike the other 3 components though, they don't have the b.s. reputation. The manufacturing costs and r&d costs tend to be justified with increased sound quality. If the incremantal improvements are important to you or not is another story. And of course, some people wouldn't give 2 cents towards a analog system. But, the improvements are seldom disputed or considered snake oil. There is no debate about if they all sound the same like there is for amps or cables. And I have never heard or read, any comments about the more expensive TT's sounding awful, as opposed to expensive speakers that often do receive and deserve such comments.

Also, music and sound is like visual art. We all have different opinions as to what is good. I am absolutely convinced that some people simply can't hear the difference in components, often when they are considered extreme. While others can quickly identify when something has changed in a system they are very familiar with.

I don't beleive that you can tell if a audio component is going to be right for you based on just test numbers. But, I also don't think that any but a very few, could be consistant in a audio blind testing environment. So, what is left? You need a combination of both. Looking at test results and measurements can help you listen for strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately you have to take a listen looking for several things. For me, first and formost I take notice of how my body reacts. Have I relaxed and is some part of me moving to the music. I use very specific music tracks to see if the things I find are important have been improved by introducing the new component. I especially make sure that the listening test is extensive enough to see if there will be listening fatigue, and with digital, do I lose intrest.

[ht_addict]

By spending the wifes money :B

[jonathanb3478]

Well, I have used different methods for different components bought at different times when I had different opinions/outlooks.

For example, in '01, I bought my Sony ES SCD-C555ES simply because it was what I wanted (SACD-Multi/CD 5-disc changer) and was on Stereophile's recommended components as a "Class A" source. Just as important, of course, was that I could afford it. I valued having the best possible source component, and felt that a Stereophile "Class A" rating was a sufficient indicator of quality for me at that time. Also, it helped that I thought the Stereophile reviewer who wrote up the C555ES was going to propose to it, after hearing SACD-Multi for the first time ever using the player in the review.

I got my Sony ES TA-P9000ES a few months later, because it was the only analog multichannel pre in existence, as far as I knew, when I got it. It then ended up being on the Stereophile "Class A" list for multichannel music components. This was soon enough after my C555ES purchase that my opinions regarding that had not yet changed.

My amp was one of the two identically priced, and cheapest, units at the retailer where I first discovered "high end" audio just over a decade ago. back in '94 I was in the middle of High School, and my budget was minuscule compared to now. I could barely scrape together what I spent on the amp to go with the Paradigm Titans and Sony variable output CDP I already had. To choose between the two units they had in my price range (barely), I did a sighted "shootout" between the Parasound HCA-600 I ended up with, and an ADS unit, whose exact model number escapes me now.

My Outlaw Audio ICBM-1 was purchased in '02 (IIRC) for about the same reason as the P9000ES, there was nothing else available that would do what I wanted (6.1 channel bass management in the analog domain) at the time.

My 3 pairs of Dynaudio Audience 42 bookshelf speakers were purchased because I did not want to buy the B&W speakers I was planning on getting (CDM-1NT X 4 to use with the pair of CDM-2SE I already owned) without directly comparing them to something else first. There was such a minor difference in what I heard when I did that comparison that I went home instead of make a purchase, even though I had the money to buy right then. It took me a couple days to admit to myself that I wanted the 3 pairs of Dyns vs the two pairs of B&Ws, because of that little shootout "formality". I went back and made the purchase as soon as I was able to, however.

Now, I have embarked on a DIY speaker project. If a direct comparison between my current Dyns and the completed RS TMWW DIY speakers comes out in the DIY project's favor, I will be replacing all speakers in all three of my systems (m-ch music, HT, and stereo only) with DIY speakers as fast as I can get them made.

[soundhound]

By spending the wifes money :B

:rofl: LMAO

[Ovation]

By spending the wifes money :B

:^x :T :lol:

In my case this was literally true. My wife makes waaayy more money than me (even when I was working full-time) and when we had our first child, we decided I'd "retire" and be a stay at home parent. As a "payment" for this, my wife told me to go out and buy myself a system (I had a 5000$US budget at the time). Over the course of six months (after about 12 months of research) I auditioned a number of components and assembled my system.

My speakers (which were the items that underwent the most auditioning):
Boston Acoustics VR-M60s up front, VR-M50s in rear, VRC Centre and PV900 subwoofer (I did consider some other subs, including SVS--which seemed to be the "gold standard" at the time I was buying my stuff, but I got a significant bargain on the sub because my original receiver choice did not pan out--two defective units in a row, so I went with the number two on my list and I've been happy with it ever since)

My receiver: Integra DTR 6.4. Have had a few very minor niggling issues, but overall I am quite satisfied with the feature set and its performance. I will likely add some outboard amplification (probably a stereo amp) to get that little extra power (splitting the load, so to speak)--but that's more like taking an extra desert because I can. If finances are too constraining, I'll be quite happy to soldier on with the unit as is for some time to come.

My DVD players: Marantz DV6400 and Cambridge Audio 540D. My original intent was to get the Marantz and a dedicated CD player (to split the load and to avoid being without music if one player had to go to the shop). On the audio side, the Marantz measured (in my auditions) very well against the Denon DVD-2900 (a hot product at the time) for 1/3 the price (in Canada--the price difference in the US was a lot less, but still significant). On the video side, the Denon was clearly better in prog scan, but I didn't (and won't for a few more years) own a TV capable of taking advantage of that feature (plus, I'm an audio guy first) so it seemed a waste to spend the extra money. I then began to look at CD players and had narrowed my choices to the NAD C541i and the Cambridge Audio 540C. However, several people had suggested the 540D was sonically equal to the 540C (they were EXACTLY the same price) and I did an extensive comparison between the two with two commercial copies (not burned) of the same CD and the difference was very noticeable. The manager of the store (for whom the comparison was blind, though it wasn't blind for me--it was level matched for me, though) came to the same conclusion. The 540D, on that day, with that equipment, was clearly better (when I say his comparison was blind--the two players were level matched at my request and I controlled the switching back and forth when he came back into the room after I'd spent an hour in there alone--it was impossible for him to tell WHICH player I was selecting, though he did know that both players were the same brand. He also had a bias, as did I, towards expecting the dedicated CD player to be better with CDs than the DVD player). As they were the same price, I chose the DVD player. It has several added bonuses. One, it is region free out of the box. Two, its layer change is lightning fast (more so than the Marantz--I did a head to head test at home) and its PQ, to my eyes on my Sony Wega 32" CRT analogue TV (via component cables), is indistinguishable from the Marantz, so it became the default movie player (I occasionally use the Marantz with rented movies as it seems to have a more robust error correction and reads scratched discs that give fits to every other player in the house). It can be used directly with a power amp (so I make make it the basis of a minimalist two channel system in the future). It can be configured for 2.1 CD playback (so I can use a sub in a two channel system w/o wiring the speakers to the sub). It plays DVD-A (unnecessary at the moment as I use my Marantz for that, but potentially useful later). And it cost half as much as my Marantz (which I thought was already reasonably priced). So I now use it for CDs in a 2.1 configuration through the PURE AUDIO mode on my receiver and keep my sub in the mix without extra A/D/A conversions.

The TV I already had (and with the 16x9 "cheat" for anamorphic DVDs, it mimics a 29" widescreen TV at close to EDTV resolution (to the eye, if not to specs) and as my HT room is not too big and my listening/viewing chair is only 7 feet from the screen, the picture is fine for now.

And that is the short version of how my system came to be. Oh yeah, I also have a JVC S-VHS VCR that still gets some use (I have about 100 films on VHS that I have not "upgraded" and I also occasionally copy some TV shows, for myself and some friends who are "sans" cable/satellite). And I have a Mini-Disc recorder (home audio version) to keep my portable player supplied with discs (easier to work with for recording than the portable).