"Perfect" systems ?

Posted by: Bob Edwards on 23 November 2000

Hey all--

I've been thinking on the idea of a "perfect" system for a long time--what it would be, what characteristics it would have, etc. By "perfect" I don't mean indistinguishable from live music--that strikes me as patently absurd. What I have in mind is a combination of gear that satisfies over the long term; one in which the individual components work so well together that everything falls away but the music--no fiddling with stands, upgrading different boxes, power, etc.

I have heard three systems that I think meet these criteria. The first is the LP12/Nait 2/Kans. As Tony put it quite eloquently elsewhere a Nait 2 gets the basics right and the 52/135 adds maybe 5-10%. The second is the 72/Hicap/250/Kans or SBLs. With either speaker the electronics appear to totally get out of the way and get you to the very core of the music. Finally, 52/6x135s/active DBLs. I still have not heard a better system (not having heard 3x500/DBL). Sources are assumed to be appropriate quality level given differences in taste.

Thoughts//comments//discussion ?

Cheers and Peace !

Bob

Posted on: 23 November 2000 by P
err.....????

On what exactly are you basing your analogies Bob?

or... what are you, personally, listening to and hearing at this moment?

Curious P.

Posted on: 23 November 2000 by Arye_Gur
Bob,

quote:
As Tony put it quite eloquently elsewhere a Nait 2 gets the basics right and the 52/135 adds maybe 5-10%.

It is not true. 5-10% is a slight improvement at the level of the Nait2 - maybe the Nait3 does it over the Nait2. I had Nait2 > Nait3 and now a 72 -
and the 72 improves sound much higher than what a 5-10% improvement apears to my imagination.

Many members here are thinking that a Mana table improves sound far more than what you suggest as an improvement between a Nait2 and a 52 so I can guess that most members here are thinking that a 52 is a great improvement over the Nait2 - shure not a 5-10%.

I'm not sure members will agree about the idae of a perfect system. If I want to listen to a performer for example, I think the best results will be if he comes and play at my living room in front of me. So to my opinion a perfect system is a system that will stimulate my mind and imagination exectly the way a live performance does.

Arie

Posted on: 23 November 2000 by David Dever
...sometimes you just have to wonder if one can ever be satisfied with anything at all, whether the sound of an acoustic guitar is reproduced from a Compact Disc recording through a top-performance hi-fi, reproduced from an open-reel analog master through an expensive pair of studio monitors, or played in the same room...let alone putting the same instrument in one's own hands!

(Ask a musician friend sometime about one of those "off days", when you just can't coax anything useful out of an instrument, no matter how hard you try...)

The hi-fi part ought to be easy, if you're a good listener in the first place, and can appreciate or receive the communication from the artist. Otherwise, you may as well turn on the television.

Dave Dever, NANA

[This message was edited by David Dever, NANA on THURSDAY 23 November 2000 at 23:17.]

Posted on: 23 November 2000 by Arye_Gur
David Dever,
quote:
whether the sound of an acoustic guitar is reproduced
out of a stereo system
quote:
or played in the same room...

An excelent example - as it happened to me to listen many times to acoustic guitar - it is a very popular instrument I'm familiar with the feelings this instrument brings to my mind. (listening to music is all about mind and immagination). So harping is a good way to estimate a system to my mind.
Clapping hands although it is not a music, is a good way to estimate "how real a system is" to my mind because I'm familiar with this sound too.

Arie