2. speakers
  3. 1146102404

Good Advice

As an old mid-fi'er seeking to upgrade both my old Onkyo receiver and Boston Acoustic speakers, it was great to find this advice in Epinions.

"Dancing on the Diminishing Returns Curve: Choosing Stereo Speakers
Dec 15 '05 (Updated Feb 18 '06)

The Bottom Line Don't go overboard and turn into a "tweak." Buy something inexpensive but good, dial it in, and enjoy the music.

It happened again the other day.

I was at someone's house and they were showing me their $20,000 stereo. Tube amplifiers. Elite CD player. $6,000 speakers. It sounded...great. And boring. Precise imaging. Tight bass. Unbelievable delicacy. And the whole was...less than the sum of the parts. I was unmoved by the music.

And so was the owner, I think.

He had the furrowed brow of someone with audiophilia nervosa, obsessed with achieving audio nirvana and spending his listening time noticing imperfections that could only be improved with a different amplifier, or different speakers, or maybe different interconnects or speaker wires.

He could never be satisfied with his system, and he could never slow down and enjoy the MUSIC.

At home, I have a modest but good system consisting of $1000 speakers, under $1000 worth of solid state amplification (and a $600 tube integrated amplifier which I sometimes use), a modest CD player, turntable, tuner and subwoofer. And the thing is DIALED! It sounds great to me.

Yeah, the imaging is a bit diffuse, inner detail is only good, and the mid-bass is a little round. But who cares? When I listen to music, I enjoy the music. And I'm not thinking about what component to get next, even when I'm sprawled on my bed reading Stereophile magazine.

What did I do right?

I gave up on finding sonic perfection and found components that work well together. And I made sure the cost of each component was on that part of the diminishing returns curve where things flatten out: where large increments in amount spent lead only to small increments in sound improvement.

The bottom line is this: You can have an excellent stereo system for a fraction of what the "tweaks" are paying, and you'll probably enjoy your music more than they do. The speakers are probably the most important component in a home audio system, so shop around and figure out what kind of sound YOU like.

Then have fun assembling an inexpensive system that's 80% or 90% as good as the best out there. After that, forget about the system and enjoy the MUSIC."

Truth is, whether you're spending a 1K or 100K the bottom line (or what should be the bottom line) is the MUSIC and your enjoyment of it. If you lose sight of that, then I would really wonder "what are you spending your money on and what are you trying to accomplish?".
cleaneduphippy
gunbei
2,327 posts
 
I think what you did right was to assemble a system YOU like. Whether it was by happen stance or it was thoroughly planned out consider yourself lucky and blessed.

My current line of thinking is that the "it's all about the music" phrase is a crock of sheeot coming from us audiophiles. If it were truly just about the music we'd be happy with cheap mass market electronics and the term audio-nervosa would completely unknown to us.

The audio gods have blessed you, Sir CleanedUpHippy!
cleaneduphippy OP
323 posts
 
Lots of interesting points of view here and I certainly hope that some of y'all don't think I'm putting anyone down for the amount of money they put into a system. That's not the point. Believe me, if I had deep enough pockets I would have a system to die for. But once achieved I don't think I would obsessive with how to get that last little itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit of perfection out it. Why, you ask? Well, I learned a long time ago that quite a bit (if not most) of great music has been recorded under less than ideal conditions, but even so, the performance of the music more than makes up for whatever sonic imperfections that might have been captured in the recording of the music. I myself am a member of a community that actively collects and trades recording of live shows. And I sure all of y'all understand that the quality of these recording vary widely. Some are recorded very well, others well......., but even so, almost all of these recording has something in the performance of the music that make it worthwhile hearing. My question to members of the audiophile community would be, could you listen to a great performance of music and get into and be moved by the music, even if the performance itself was recorded under less than ideal conditions and your audio set-up was quite revealing of these imperfections? You know sometimes the quest for perfection leads you away from what you truly seeking, which hopefully is listening to musicians opening their heart and soul in performance of their music, be it in a recording studio or live on stage. Also, quite often during a performance it's the "mistakes" that give the music it's soul and character and often time move the music to a level of greatness. Anybody, that listens to jazz understand the concept that musically you got to take chances if you want to reach greatness, and quite often those chances are taken in a live environment and if a recording is being made it's probably not going to be the best quality in the world. Indeed, in most cases, it'll be just a "working demo" for the musicians involved.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
i think itms is true--it's the music stupid.

a two part study in stereophile showed that sound quality was not a guarantee of satisfaction.

you can get just as much satisfaction listening to your favorite music ona $300 personal stereo as on a $100,00 stereo system.

no, the sound is the same, but you can connect to the music, emotionally, even if the sound is mediocre.

what happened in the 30's when the sound quality by today's standards was poor. didn't people enjoy the music ?

staisfaction is more dependent on the person than the stereo system.
jaybo
4,478 posts
 
mrtennis is correct
bdgregory
1,580 posts
 
I think it depends on what your hobby is. If your hobby is the music, then it's good to remember that and follow the advice of the first post. But IMO, there's absolutely nothing wrong if you realize your hobby includes active participation in the delivery and facilities required for music. my personal experience is below for those who want to read on . . .

For years my primary hobby has been boating and water skiing. I pursued that with obsession, not only dealing with new Boats, Skis, upgrades and tweaks, but also buying lakefront property and building a house and dock to maximize my enjoyment.

Similarly I now actively pursue a hobby that I consider to be "audio", which is not only the music, but also the delivery, and facility. I have always been passionate about music, and it's always playing. BUT, I'm a geek, and I enjoy the active part of the hobby as much as the passive part. I find every tweak, and new piece of equipment invigorating. Not only the active part when I install it; but I'm almost always thrilled by the results when I sit and listen.

Just as my enjoyment of boating has evolved, and I no longer tweak, I'm satisfied with the boat I have and simply go out and drive it; I expect this will happen with the audio part too. At that point I will passively enjoy just the music, but will probably have some other hobby to satisfy the geek in me.
More to discover