What is your SYSTEM TYPE?

madmax

We all have our own idea whats cool and what is top notch in a system. Loudest, classiest, biggest, quietest, most expensive, least expensive, most musical, everything sounds great, nothing sounds good, most modern, vintage, super efficient, tube driven, mosfet driven, full range drivers, extensive tweaking, all analog, all digital, home built, big name etc. I could go on for pages...



So what attributes make up your current way of thinking on what you think is cool?


My response:
A cool system for me is a semi muscular system (although with tubes) which does ok with definition but is more musical than perfect. It must all be used and half price. Actual MSRP doesn't matter but the higher the better. It must have some cool looks. An industrial look is fine so long as it is unique. Of course the more tubes sticking out the better. It must also drive SDA's, the coolest speaker in the universe. The cables and interconnects can be a mix of cheap or most expensive but must sound better than most mid level ones. The more MIT interconnects the better. Tweaks and upgrades should be done to everything.

What are your thoughts?

madmax

JimBRICK

I have the most budget 2 channel system in the forum I think

230 bucks of AWESOMENESS

zombie boy 2000

Cool thread...

I would say that musicality would be goal numero uno in my set-up. If some detail in sacrificed in the process, so be it. Shallow or not, modern aesthetics are very important to me and as such, I prefer silver faceplates and maple speaks. When tubes are reintroduced into my system, I'll want them peeking out of the chassis as I do love that warm, tube glow.

Soundwise (beyond musicality and I suppose, timbre), a speakers ability to image excellently is what wins me over -- normally the province of bookshelves. However, I need to have some impact -- some dynamic thrust. In which case, I'll probably always check out single-driver floorstanders... first and foremost.

Speaker cables and IC's are such a fun part of this hobby, that I'll always be tinkering with 'em.

Ricardo

I still don't have enough experience on this as to have formed a complete idea of what is exactly what I like; so far I do have a few though:

-Full range speakers capable of low 30's. Don't like subs for 2 channel music.
-Have at least two of the same component at any given time (two sets of speakers, or two preamps, or two sources, etc); I LOVE swapping around and finding the differences, strenghts and weakenesses.
-Tubes are cool and sound good, but their flexibility (different tubes, different bias points, etc) might be too distracting.
-Preamp MUST have remote volume control.
-The listening position (Chair, sofa, recliner, bed.....) must be comfortable.

AndyGwis

I would say my current theme is to find the best deals around, throw them all together, and hope to hell they sound good. If not, use them till I find an equally good / better deal on something that might be better. Only buy used. I usually think more expensive gear is better in at least one way (either sound, looks, coolness factor, features, etc.).

Sound must be room filling, not bright, speakers able to dig down to high 30s at very least (no sub preferred), remotes for as much as possible. Looks are very important. Items have to have cool lights if possible.

My short audio journey has been filled with tons of different gear from all levels. It's not easy to piece meal a system together when only looking for great deals. I don't have my mind set on a specific piece, just a decent idea of what I "think" I might want.

For example, my 2-channel CDP: 6 months ago I had a free Kenwood changer CDP that didn't eject. Then, a Rotel RCC 945, then Sony SCD-222ES, then Sony DVP-S9000ES, now a Sony SCD-2000ES and Theta DAC. But, when you make a few bucks with each transaction, it makes sense to buy and sell till you get it perfectly right.

Wardsweb

I know the word synergy gets tossed around a lot but I think it is one of the most important parts of a great system. If your individual pieces don't work well together, then you're just spinning your wheels.

For me synergy isn't just about the best sound you can achieve for your budget but that it looks nice too. Esthetics are very important to me. My system must sound good, look good and fit nicely in the room it is in. You can think of it as a feng shui kind of thing.

Now will you acheive this from the get go? There is a 99% chance you will not. It takes time and patience to roll through gear to find the pieces that sync. The process is well worth it in the end.

Shizelbs

For a while there I was a preamp short of having a 100% made in Washington State system.

unc2701

Superclean. Clinical. If a guy in the recording booth cracked his knuckles while the tape was running, I want to be able to hear it.

Early B.

unc2701 wrote: »

Superclean. Clinical. If a guy in the recording booth cracked his knuckles while the tape was running, I want to be able to hear it.

Me, too. I want to hear every effin' nuance on the CD.

But the most important characteristic I seek is TONE.

Also, simpler is better.

mulveling

Must Haves:
Musicality,
Effortless flow,
Killer dynamics (micro & macro),
Holographic imaging,
Organic & natural tone,
Refinement,
Speed/resolution/instrument separation (no, this is NOT mutually exclusive with my other requerements),
Natural full-range response; cohesive and integrated,
Warmth,
Liquid,
Optimal performance at the moderately loud volumes I prefer
Typically I like to see the frequency response smooth and slightly tipped down

NOT A HINT of:
analytical, clinical, hard, cold, sterile, grainy, gritty, hash, haze, glare

Hence, I like tubes & vinyl.

skipf

I like cool meters on amps. The M-500t has great ones, especially if you change the bulbs to blue. Balanced sound that can be played at concert levels without pain is also important.

Shizelbs

Okay, here it is. I've been thinking for a while, and I really think this is the perfect one word answer to the question.

TRUTHINESS

fatchowmein

I wanted an A/V central repository. Music is very important but the emphasize is on the ability to replay music, movies, and photos from one central location so connectivity is very important. Dead quiet equipment is also important but my Xbox 360 is currently the loudest piece.

It's been a long, slippery, road but I'm making progress.

hearingimpared

I like when I am reading articles on let's say the one about Craig Kallman the audiophile Chairman and CEO of Atlantic records and find out that two (Spectral & SME) of the four components in his home rig are the same as in my rig. Or when I'm checking out the pretty marketing pictures of $20,000 and up turntables and I see my tonearm showcased in the ad.

Stuff like that just affirms for me that I am on the right track and gives me a little woody.

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

But the most important characteristic I seek is TONE.

AMEN!!!

zombie boy 2000

hearingimpared wrote: »

and I see my tonearm showcased in the ad.
Stuff like that just affirms for me that I am on the right track and gives me a little woody.

Are ya sure that's a tonearm?:p

HBombToo

No bloat on the bottom, very warm mids and a twinkle on the top end with NO tinny irratation at all.

Sounds like my SDA's driven with the elagence of my Marantz 8 all bought right here from some very cool forum members!

hearingimpared

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

Are ya sure that's a tonearm?:p

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

Jstas

JimBRICK wrote: »

I have the most budget 2 channel system in the forum I think

230 bucks of AWESOMENESS

The original home stereo I started with was a $130 tube amp I built myself with a Carver C-1 I got from TroyD for like $70 I think it was and a broken CD player and KLH 17's from George Grand for $30. That's $210 of AWESOMENESS!

It's not bragging or trying to better anyone, just the cold hard facts.

My current setup ran me probably around $800. I still have the original setup though albeit with a different pre-amp. 'Cause the Carver is employed with the Amazings.



My system type? Hmmm, I can't real categorize it. I go for what sounds good to me. I like stuff with a very flat response. It took a long time to get that in my car stereo but I finally have it. If I get a decent setup for the Amazings, I'll probably have a pretty flat response with that too. Cost is not a big deal to me unless it's something disgustingly low like $230 of awesomeness that sounds like it should cost 10 times that much. Giant killers are cool and so are home grown solutions. I like big dollar gear as much as the next guy but anyone can throw money at a stereo. I like the stuff from the guy that doesn't have cubic dollars to spend and makes the best out of what he has. I really like the stuff from people who have a sound understanding of the science behind the hobby because I usually end up learning alot from those folks.

I guess I like the applied technology of the system because any system can be cool to me. I mean, a bank of Peavey amps in a dive bar with a blues guitar howling away will sound just as spectacular to me as a set of Wilson Watt Puppies. Or the old Realistic towers hung from the ceiling at the back of the shop and hooked up to an old Pioneer receiver will sound just as good to me as a set of Sonus Faber Cremoras. It's the same reason I have just as much love for my $210 KLH/dbx/Carver/tube amp stereo as I have for my Polk SDA/Adcom/Onkyo stereo or the Carver/Rotel/Amazings setup. Two of them have some big, bad gear in them but the one I cherish the most is that measly, little, hand-built 8Wx2 tube amp and the 1967 vintage KLH 17's. Mainly because I built it myself and took extra care to give it every fighting chance and it totally paid off. Different gear in different environments but it's what's associated with that gear and environment that makes some systems more memorable than others.

So I guess it's tone because to me a crappy rig in a dive bar will have just as much character and panache as Wilson Watt Puppies in an ideal display place.

JimBRICK

Jstas wrote: »

The original home stereo I started with was a $130 tube amp I built myself with a Carver C-1 I got from TroyD for like $70 I think it was and a broken CD player and KLH 17's from George Grand for $30. That's $210 of AWESOMENESS!

mine includes
speakers, cd player, integrated amp and turntable

JimBRICK

Jstas wrote: »

The original home stereo I started with was a $130 tube amp I built myself with a Carver C-1 I got from TroyD for like $70 I think it was and a broken CD player and KLH 17's from George Grand for $30. That's $210 of AWESOMENESS!

mine includes
speakers (mirage), cd player (nakamichi), integrated amp(pioneer elite) and turntable (yamaha)

Systems

Im partial to active loudspeakers.Removing the passive crossovers and going completely active was by far the biggest performance gain I have achieved.The down side is the complexity because the need for 7 channels of amplification just for my 2 main speakers.(3way + mono sub).

venomclan

I have been creating a system that plays so loud, it will blow women's clothes off. Thats all.
V

tom t

im happy if its loud and clean and everything is working. i also like venomclan's idea.

joeparaski

I like gear, and lots of it. It's gotta be a seperate as possible and its gotta have a ton of buttons and switches. Meters and more meters too, I have to see those needles jumping in response to the power output.

It needs to sound good, and my gear does sound good to me believe it or not. I love music, the actual music, so whether it is reproduced accurately or not is not as important as the "music" that gets me singing aloud and playing air guitar or air drums.

My "audio circle" of friends always consisted of 3 people...me, myself, and I. Until I discovered this forum I didn't know about fancy cables, sorbomats, clamps, acoustic panels, special racks, synergy etc etc. Now my quest is to improve the sound while still using the multitude of gear and tone controlers that I've accumulated.

Joe

JimBRICK

Joe you have so much stuff you need to open a boutique,

btw how do you like that emotiva?

Ern Dog

- I gotta have towers and a sub for Deep clean bass.
- The music has to sound full, warm and ALIVE!
- My HK, B&K amp and tube pre-amp all have Blue LED lights and I like that they all match.
- I'm budget minded, so all my gear is either used or last years model so that it is half price.

VR3

I have a very odd system outlook...

1) Has to be matching components -- same color, so forth

2) Has to be clean cut, not alot of lights - switches or knobs... very "direct"

3) No cheap looking components readily visible. Drives me nuts to see a VCR next to a mono block. Just sayin...

4) Has to have a big amplifier or two somewhere...

5) Big speakers are fun... but I dont like fridge speakers... lol

6) Gotta have a massive sub that can do music and HT

as for sound...

Detailed, lil on the brighter side -- lil bass heavy (maybe +2-3db) -- very refined with a prominent center image... very wide staging and lots of depth/seperation.

Bass has to kick as well...

dougy

Great thread!

My sytem type seems to evolve as the weaknesses of my "type de jour" become obvious. So...currently I would say, whether two channel or surround, video or not, that I like simplicity. I like the set-up to look clean, not as in the absence of dirt, but in the harmony of the set-up and how it fits into it's surroundings. I detest exposed wires unless we're talking big, honkin' speaker cables that lay in graceful arcs on the floor (2-channel only). I like as few exposed components as possible --a "one box" solution such as the Arcam Solo is VERY appealing to me, but for some reason or another, usually will not quite fill the bill. Which is not to say I don't appreciate nice equipment, because I do, but I just have a low clutter tolerance. A big double or triple rack of open shelves all full of boxes and boxes and more boxes, with visible wires dangling behind ---YUCK!! When I picture in my mind what an ideal set up would look like, I see (A), for a stereo rig, an open three or four shelf rack with good wire management. I see three either perfectly matched components (same color, style and make), or if you can get enough separation between boxes, three equally attractive but different boxes that contrast well. And (B), for HT I see a lovely flat screen with a long, low cabinet beneath. I see minimal componentry (excess necessities hidden behind cabinet doors) and all wires running to surround speakers should be hidden or al least made acceptably unobtrusive.

Now for sound quality! I want it all!! I want clean, extended bass, without boom. I want open, airy highs and clean, 3-D mids. I want to be able to play at sane, healthy, life-like levels and I want good depth with near holographic imaging.

As for equipment specifics, I prefer MOS-FET sound over any I've heard so far. I have no interest in going the tube route even though I might like the sound. I prefer optical discs and music servers to vinyl or tape. I detest the sound quality of Sirius, at least as heard over my Dish satellite receivers. Most all FM radio sound in my area is horrible, the only exception being our local NPR affiliate.

And most of all, I love basset hounds, the St. Louis Rams, Holly Cole and girls with long legs and nice gluteous maximi.:cool:

skipf

Jstas wrote: »

If I get a decent setup for the Amazings, I'll probably have a pretty flat response with that too. Cost is not a big deal to me unless it's something disgustingly low like $230 of awesomeness that sounds like it should cost 10 times that much.

Try Silver 9t's with those Amazings. They are indeed made for each other, and you should be able to pick up a near mint pair for $1400 - $2000. Matter of fact there is a board member that just bought four of 'em and he likes his Krell better. You might pick up a pair from him.