Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[4est]

40 minutes ago, ralphfcooke said:

Given the significant differences in the sound  between even very high end speakers;

which swamp any differences in the intervening electronics, why aren't we more concerned about

getting this right?, rather than trying to decide 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'

wrt different DACs, cables, etc?

Who is we, and who says we are not?

 

If a speaker is to be about half the price of the entire system, one wouldn't just change it willy nilly (a gross generalization). Furthermore, changing out speakers is a much larger task even beyond just the cost. Room layout and speaker positioning are very important IME, and can take quite a bit of effort/time to work out. That is not to mention the size and weight.

 

Mostly though I feel that you may have missed the obvious. I have always recommended one find speakers that they LOVE first and foremost. Then spend the time and effort getting the most out of them. Perhaps many of us are merely do this. FWIW, I run multiple sets of speakers, and maintain electronics to match them all. What is listed in my signature is my living room AV set up. My primary speakers are Sound Lab A3s. They weigh over 100#.

[4est]

Just now, marioed said:

I think 4est makes a very good point. For many of us in this hobby our speakers often represent the single most expensive to replace component in the system. Unless you have one or more good audio stores close by I think for many folks the cost of shipping alone is going to limit the number of different speakers one can afford to try out. So once you find a speaker you really like you're probably not going to consider changing them too often. To a lesser extent I suspect the same is true for amplification, once you find the amp that gives what you consider the best sound with your speakers you're not likely to change it. 

 

Regards,

Mario

 

Bingo!

[4est]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Only audiophiles facing this problem of getting the sound correct. Not one videophiles would argue that 50s black and white or the 70s color TV was closer to reality compared to the current 8K format. 

 

To those with proper 5.1 setup knows that stereo sound can never  achieve the realism of the former and yet they steadfastly remain loyal to the stereo format. I have lost count of the number of times reviewers telling that with certain equipment they felt like being there in a live performance and yet this search continues.

 

It is not difficult to know where the weak link is but we have evolved to accept stereo sound itself as unique and forms its own flavour which somewhat similar to lover of vintage sports cars. That is, both are inferior compared current standards but they still appeal to some.

 

It is no longer about speakers or electronics. 

 

 

 

This is so tired...

 

I attempt to use my source material to the best of my abilities. There just isn't enough multichannel material for me to wreck my living spaces with even more speakers. Especially because I prefer panel speakers (I own Sound Lab, Quad and Magnepan) which require addition space around them. And yes, I have done this. For awhile I was running 5 Quad 63s run by 5 EAR 509s. There just wasn't enough material to justify continuing it. The source material is the limiting factor IMO, and makes multi-channel merely a side gig at best.

[4est]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Lack of multichannel material is secondary. I gave up chasing multichannel format because those are very limited and practical none for my preferred genre despite all of them were and are cinema sound track. 

 

The point is stereo itself and how to make them to sound closer to real performance. 

Where are you going with this then. First you say that stereo is limited, and then you suggest that multi channel has limited material. Is this then some study or simply you pontificating? I just don't get where you are coming from.