The Quest for Perfection

[MDS]

We get a lot of threads on the value of separate amps and pre-pros vs receivers and in general I think it is all about the quest for perfection. Those firmly in the camp that external amps vastly improve performance no doubt believe an amp gets them closer to their goal of sonic perfection than any mere receiver ever could. Others naturally disagree.

Despite the debate about amps and pre-pros most do seem to agree that the speakers and the room contribute the most to the final sound we hear. There is obviously huge variability there as all speakers are different and nobody has the exact same room. The source is where it all starts - and that is often MILES from perfection. I have a wide range of music and have been using a digital audio editor for years. The range of quality in the recordings is enormous - some are way too hot, some too low, lots of sibilance from being mic'ed too close, background noise from the studio or the original master tape if the recording is old and was transferred to a new medium, etc. Others sound fabulous.

So, let's take the discussion in another direction. Is it even valid to ever expect perfection from our electronics and speakers? I always say that I would rather have a not-so-great recording of long lost music than none at all and I just deal with the slight imperfections. Those of us that grew up with LPs never really had any complaints then even though comparing them to new recordings now shows just how poor LPs were.

 

[tbewick]

Is it even valid to ever expect perfection from our electronics and speakers?

I think that if you are too fussy then you'll never be happy, however good your equipment is. In the end, I think that most people learn to live with the faults of their set up.

Those of us that grew up with LPs never really had any complaints then even though comparing them to new recordings now shows just how poor LPs were.

It's odd but I do prefer the crackle and distortion of vinyl to the brittle sound that CD's sometimes have. Maybe it's that 'vinyl warmth' that everyone goes on about. I also preferred the LP format when it came to size. With 12 inches, you got enough room for a nice, big picture on the front, and a large, attractive inlay.

There's just something magical about vinyl which CD's don't have.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Thoughts from someone who thinks too much

Is it even valid to ever expect perfection from our electronics and speakers?

There are many answers to your question.

I see nothing wrong with pursuing perfection so long as it's understood that it'll never be achieved. One could argue that if it'll never be achieved, why bother pursuing it in the first place, but I think that it's an intuitively good thing to try and better ourselves. Note that I didn't say that we should always try to better ourselves because at some point, typically the limit of our natural abilities, pursuit is exchanged for futility and becomes wasted effort.

At a practical level, components could one day be (already are?) classed as perfect because differences between them are too small to be detected by people, but realistically, that wont prevent the latter from buying something indistinguishable from a lesser priced component. And why shouldn't they? After all, even if they cannot distinguish between what they buy and something cheaper, they absolutely can enjoy (though not appreciate) the former more than the latter.

There is a saying:

Perfection has but one flaw; it is apt to be dull.

The greatest works of man created by masters of their art in every field are not bought because they are perfect. They are bought because they exhibit 'the human touch', and that is inherently imperfect.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There's just something magical about vinyl which CD's don't have.

You are right. It is that elusive magic

By the way, you might like to read this:
http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_6086.pdf

 

[mtrycrafts]

We get a lot of threads on the value of separate amps and pre-pros vs receivers and in general I think it is all about the quest for perfection. Those firmly in the camp that external amps vastly improve performance no doubt believe an amp gets them closer to their goal of sonic perfection than any mere receiver ever could. Others naturally disagree.

Despite the debate about amps and pre-pros most do seem to agree that the speakers and the room contribute the most to the final sound we hear. There is obviously huge variability there as all speakers are different and nobody has the exact same room. The source is where it all starts - and that is often MILES from perfection. I have a wide range of music and have been using a digital audio editor for years. The range of quality in the recordings is enormous - some are way too hot, some too low, lots of sibilance from being mic'ed too close, background noise from the studio or the original master tape if the recording is old and was transferred to a new medium, etc. Others sound fabulous.

So, let's take the discussion in another direction. Is it even valid to ever expect perfection from our electronics and speakers? I always say that I would rather have a not-so-great recording of long lost music than none at all and I just deal with the slight imperfections. Those of us that grew up with LPs never really had any complaints then even though comparing them to new recordings now shows just how poor LPs were.

But it is soo much easier to swap components than examining the software's quality Room acoustics is even more difficult to get a handle on, so, component swapping wins in most cases. Besides, it is so difficult to correct urban legends, even in light of pretty good evidence.

For example, that Airborne cold pill that has made millions, no longer advertises that it is for colds, nor that they have a clinical trial behind it which turns out to be a total fraud. Yet, people will still take it with all the evidence against it; they don't care, makes them 'feel' good.

 

[PENG]

So, let's take the discussion in another direction. Is it even valid to ever expect perfection from our electronics and speakers?

Probably not, but it is reasonable to expect closer to perfection if we can afford it and work on it. If I spend 15K on a pair of Krell monoblock or Classe amps, 15K on a pair of the big B&W diamond series speakers, and 15K on room acoustics, I still won't get that perfect sound but I sure hope the Placebo effect alone would make me feel my system is close to perfect.

 

[highfihoney]

So, let's take the discussion in another direction. Is it even valid to ever expect perfection from our electronics and speakers?

i dont know about total perfection but i think getting very close is possible,for me the quest for perfection ended when i stumbled on the line array speaker system,they are inefficient & very hard to drive properly but they do everything i want equally well.

i think to find perfection in any system the owner needs to settle on a speaker that they love everything about & the rest will fall into place,if there is something that an owner dont like about a speakers sound no amount of money thrown at electronics or room accoustics will correct their dislike to the point they consider their rig perfect.

my answer is yes, i think perfection can be achieved but is dependant on finding the perfect speaker for each persons listening tastes.

 

[Sleestack]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I have found perfection... and its called TACT. I use TACT's TCS MKII and RCS 2.2.X as my HT and 2 channel pre/pro and pre, respectively, and TACT's true digital BOZ 216/2200 amps (and not those Class D amps that eveyone mistakes for true digital amps). As for speakers I love my Epiphany 12-12s in 2 channel but they do require the subwoofer integration that the RCS 2.2X allow and I recently ordered my Andra IIs for my HT.

I spent the last 2 years going through hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of high end solid state and tube gear. Got rid of all of it (except my headphone amp) in favor of the TACT gear. I had some really great stuff, but I'll never look back. As far as I'm concerned room correction and digital amplification are the future... and the future is now.

 

[TABCON]

I visited the Tact site and I must admit I don't get it.
They go from a 2 channel to a 16 channel modular. What does that mean...modular? Can you add amps up to a 6.1 or does one amp/receiver do it all.

Looks like very interesting stuff though.

Tabcon

 

[TABCON]

Oh, BTW...do you work for TACT...lol.

Tabcon

 

[jaxvon]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I have found perfection... and its called TACT. I use TACT's TCS MKII and RCS 2.2.X as my HT and 2 channel pre/pro and pre, respectively, and TACT's true digital BOZ 216/2200 amps (and not those Class D amps that eveyone mistakes for true digital amps). As for speakers I love my Epiphany 12-12s in 2 channel but they do require the subwoofer integration that the RCS 2.2X allow and I recently ordered my Andra IIs for my HT.

I spent the last 2 years going through hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of high end solid state and tube gear. Got rid of all of it (except my headphone amp) in favor of the TACT gear. I had some really great stuff, but I'll never look back. As far as I'm concerned room correction and digital amplification are the future... and the future is now.

If you haven't already done it, I think you need to send what you just wrote to TACT. I'm sure they'd love to put that stuff on their website.

As for me, I'd love to hear just how good that stuff really is. I know you had a lot of high end EAR and Parasound stuff, but the fact that TACT surpasses them all is quite impressive. Maybe the next time I'm on the West Coast I'll hit you up

 

[highfihoney]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I have found perfection... and its called TACT. I use TACT's TCS MKII and RCS 2.2.X as my HT and 2 channel pre/pro and pre, respectively, and TACT's true digital BOZ 216/2200 amps (and not those Class D amps that eveyone mistakes for true digital amps). As for speakers I love my Epiphany 12-12s in 2 channel but they do require the subwoofer integration that the RCS 2.2X allow and I recently ordered my Andra IIs for my HT.

I spent the last 2 years going through hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of high end solid state and tube gear. Got rid of all of it (except my headphone amp) in favor of the TACT gear. I had some really great stuff, but I'll never look back. As far as I'm concerned room correction and digital amplification are the future... and the future is now.

its a sweet feeling when you finally hit the nail on the head,just in this last year ive found what i had been looking for over the years & i love it.

btw,your rig looks like it was very well planned out

 

[mtrycrafts]

There are many answers to your question.
.

Maybe I should have asked, what is the yardstick to measure to, or by?
When would one recognize it if it is achievable? Or, is this one of those questions with many answers

 

[Sleestack]

Oh, BTW...do you work for TACT...lol.

Tabcon

No I don't, but I can understand why it might sound like I do. I'm just a consumer who was able to spend quite a bit of money on a variety of gear to figure out what worked best for me.

I visited the Tact site and I must admit I don't get it.
They go from a 2 channel to a 16 channel modular. What does that mean...modular? Can you add amps up to a 6.1 or does one amp/receiver do it all.

Looks like very interesting stuff though.

The 2150s are their older 2 channel amps. The BOZ216/2200s are their new amps. The 216 is a power source and control center for the amps. You can also do room correction, crossovers and equalization (among other things) with the 216. The 2200s are their amp modules. Each one has 2 channels but is designed in a monoblock design (each one has a separate power supply and PWM circuit). You use the 216/2200 with one of their preamps. In my case, I'm using it with their TCS MKII HT pre/pro and their RCS 2.2.X 2.2. channel preamp. You can also do room correction, crossover and equalization at the TCS MKII or RCS 2.2.X.

Why up 16 modules you ask? The setup I will be running in my HT is a good example. I'll be using 5 Eggleston Andra IIs and 2 Velodyne DD15s. At the TCS MKII I run room correction and make my subwoofer settings. Because the Eggleston's are full range and very capable at low ends, I only route the LFE and frequencies below 30Hz to my subs. I have 5 2200s (i.e. 10 channels) hooked up to the 216. At the 216, I use even more advanced crossover to set the crossovers at each of my Andra IIs. I specifically orderd my Andra IIs to have the crossovers at the binding posts disabled so I could utilize TACT's crossovers. So, I am bi-amping each of the 5 Andra IIs and utilizing external computer generated crossovers.

Hope that helps.

 

[Sleestack]

If you haven't already done it, I think you need to send what you just wrote to TACT. I'm sure they'd love to put that stuff on their website.

As for me, I'd love to hear just how good that stuff really is. I know you had a lot of high end EAR and Parasound stuff, but the fact that TACT surpasses them all is quite impressive. Maybe the next time I'm on the West Coast I'll hit you up

Any time. I've had a few of my gearhead friends over that were astounded by what the TACT stuff does. The room correction is the key (especially in the low and midrange), but I love the digital amplification as well.

 

[mtrycrafts]

No I don't, but I can understand why it might sound like I do. I'm just a consumer who was able to spend quite a bit of money on a variety of gear to figure out what worked best for me.



The 2150s are their older 2 channel amps. The BOZ216/2200s are their new amps. The 216 is a power source and control center for the amps. You can also do room correction, crossovers and equalization (among other things) with the 216. The 2200s are their amp modules. Each one has 2 channels but is designed in a monoblock design (each one has a separate power supply and PWM circuit). You use the 216/2200 with one of their preamps. In my case, I'm using it with their TCS MKII HT pre/pro and their RCS 2.2.X 2.2. channel preamp. You can also do room correction, crossover and equalization at the TCS MKII or RCS 2.2.X.

Why up 16 modules you ask? The setup I will be running in my HT is a good example. I'll be using 5 Eggleston Andra IIs and 2 Velodyne DD15s. At the TCS MKII I run room correction and make my subwoofer settings. Because the Eggleston's are full range and very capable at low ends, I only route the LFE and frequencies below 30Hz to my subs. I have 5 2200s (i.e. 10 channels) hooked up to the 216. At the 216, I use even more advanced crossover to set the crossovers at each of my Andra IIs. I specifically orderd my Andra IIs to have the crossovers at the binding posts disabled so I could utilize TACT's crossovers. So, I am bi-amping each of the 5 Andra IIs and utilizing external computer generated crossovers.

Hope that helps.

Bypassing the passive crossovers, custom actives, bi/tri amping, that is the cats meow Now that can be a lot different.

I read a lot of good things about that speaker in The Audio Critic

 

[mtrycrafts]

Any time. I've had a few of my gearhead friends over that were astounded by what the TACT stuff does. The room correction is the key (especially in the low and midrange), but I love the digital amplification as well.

Where on the west coast? Room a board for a day or two?

Room correction? Isn't that what we are trying to push instead of magic?

 

[Buckle-meister]

More wisdom

...I should have asked, what is the yardstick to measure to, or by?

Sorry. I only work in metric.

The yardstick is different for each of us, and there are multiple yardsticks per person (I suspect this is not an answer you'll like ). You maybe content with your boom-boxes where I would not be. But then, both of us would be content with boom-boxes as opposed to not having the means to play music at all.

When would one recognize it if it is achievable?

I believe that obtaining perfection is similar to knowing you're rich; in both cases money is irrelevant.

 

[Sleestack]

Where on the west coast? Room a board for a day or two?

Room correction? Isn't that what we are trying to push instead of magic?

Bay Area. Any time.

I'm a bit surprised that room correction isn't discussed more frequently here. With the inclusion of Audyssey room correction on the Denon 5805, I thought it would start becoming a hotter topic. Personally, I had the opportunity to test the 5805 my system and was not overly impressed by the Audyssey room correction, but that's only because I was comparing to the TACT gear. The Audyssey room correction is still a great step in the right direction.

Once you hear a fully corrected system it's almost impossible to ever go back. Everything just sounds wrong in comparison.

and yes, no magic... just math and science.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I'm a bit surprised that room correction isn't discussed more frequently here.

Room correction would be synonymous with EQ right? In other words you're correcting the frequency response for a single position in a room (wherever the calibration microphone is placed). Why would one champion room correction when room treatment benefits the frequency response for the entire room?