AUDIOPHILE MANIFESTO

[Spock]

CHAPTER IV

WHAT MOTIVATES/PURSUES AN AUDIOPHILE?​

Knowing which standard should serve as a reference for the performance of our systems does not mean that it is (more) easy to achieve credible performance with that same standard. As we have already seen, it all starts with the difficulty of a correct capture, a capture that has also pursued the original timbre of the instruments, culminating in the enormous task of reproducing it in a domestic environment, with all the necessary quality electronics, with all the care in its combination, accessories used and other idiosyncrasies such as the interaction of the system with the room, etc. And given the magnitude of this task, considered by many to be a utopia that allows nothing more than a pale representation of reality, given the impossibility of achieving the fidelity that is so desired, why so many audiophiles insist on running in search of this high-fidelity, of that Holy Grail of home music reproduction? Is it because they don't know/ignore this impossibility? What do they believe? Why do they fight?

Looking back in time, before the invention of the phonograph, I imagine the anxiety of someone who liked music and only be able to enjoy it in concert halls, on occasions spaced out in time, special and unrepeatable, and as long as they got the necessary ticket. Going back even further in time, I feel a certain sadness when music was something that only the elites had access to, a privilege of kings and their courts – apart from the musicians, of course. If we stop for a moment to reflect and forget the many complaints we have in relation to a perfect world that insists on not appearing, we undeniably live in a fabulous time, where technology has immeasurably improved our quality of life, and among other things and for what matters in the context of this manifesto, it also brought with it the democratic access to music.

So, what is behind this passion for audio and motivates the existence of audiophiles is the (practically) unlimited access to the musical universe and the ability to bring music to us anytime and anywhere? Is being an audiophile the result of this possibility? Or, put instead, does this passion for sound is the result from the physical impossibility of going to all the concerts and hearing all the musicians we idolize in situ? A combination of both factors? But if the difference between recorded music and later reproduced in a home environment and its enjoyment at live musical events is so big, as all those who use these events as a reference claim, how can they even sit in front of their system and enjoy the music? Is being an audiophile simply a sign of… resignation? Or simple habituation? Can those with a regular presence in live concerts still frantically search for the best home sound reproduction, can he still be an audiophile? Is there something else motivating this passion for sound? What do you ultimately get from a live concert, amplified or not, that is absolutely irreproducible at home, and conversely, if they exist, what will be the added value of a home reproduction system? Will there be added value? If it exists, this would lead us to think that the music reproduced has differentiating characteristics from live music, distinct enough to be the reason for this endless search – and perhaps not necessarily worse as so many claim!

Let us start from the undeniable observation that technology has allowed a new approach to music, with the manipulation in the studio of the different intensities of different instruments, allowing some to be highlighted and others hidden, simultaneously with a whole series of sound artificialisms such as stereophony, phase changes and others. And with that, the musical message became undeniably different. Was it precisely this artificiality that brought something so different, so new and seductive that gave rise to the audiophile and his passion? More than satisfying the possibility of listening to any musician at any time, will not be the technology able to overcome some of the constraints of live reproduction, allowing us to immerse ourselves and enjoy the essence of the musical message as under no other circumstances was/is possible, working as an amplifier of our sensory perception, bringing us to the hyper realism of listening, as said in the phrase that serves as the motto for this manifesto? No longer in the sense of simple representation, but rather in the sense of possibility, the possibility that current technology has brought to us. An easy comparative example: cinema brought with it the existence of close-ups, so it is not uncommon for us to be able to observe all the details of a face in an image measuring, let´s say, 2 meters high. This great expansion is no longer a faithful reproduction of reality, but rather one of its possibility. Now, as we all recognize, this artificiality can induce and amplify our sensory perception. And no one rejects it for the infidelity in reproducing reality! Likewise, in audio, it is also possible to find this hyper-real reproduction, which expands the scale and detail, facilitating and/or intensifying the capture by our receivers. Said this way, it can be inferred that this new virtual reality achieved in our homes, by our systems, can even bring us closer to the true essence of the musical message, which, if confirmed, would provide an explanation for the (almost) obsessive behavior of the audiophile. One would finally understand the passion behind the hobby. Because there was/must be something very strong motivating this (almost) insane pursuit of good sound. However, this different form of presentation in the sense of possibility has not yet been understood and this makes the audiophile to live in permanent conflict with himself, divided between what he considers to be real and its accurate representation, divided between reason and feeling. And what he don´t understand he rejects, especially when that incomprehensibly feeling draws him more towards to the virtual. And then he goes into denial, denigrating the concept and praising the "real", referring to its representation, to that possibility, as something smaller, something imperfect. I hope this manifesto can help and make a contribution to calm those audiophiles with a more restless spirit, overwhelmed by the constant dichotomy (real/virtual) in which they feel trapped.

 

[Spock]

CAPÍTULO V



LIVE and REPRODUCED MUSIC​

In the chapter III, in the search for the sound that must be the reference for a so-called high-end áudio domestic reproduction system, I already touched on some limitations of the listening experience of live music. But it is undeniable that live music provides a torrent of emotions, which are in fact impossible to replicate in a domestic environment and which make concerts truly unique moments of enjoyment and communion of the taste for this great and universal art that is music.

However, in my opinion, many of the sensations experienced in live concerts have nothing to do with the music itself. It is therefore important to distinguish between the emotion of the music itself and the emotion that comes with the music. Live music events bring with them all the collateral emotion, all the additional sensations resulting from a collective experience. At home, it is almost always an individual experience. Live music involves the presence of the artist(s) themselves and there is a natural euphoria resulting from this fact. After primitive man worshipped idols of stone, it is the turn of modern man to worship idols of flesh and blood, and it is therefore very common to see the idolatry of musicians on stage and their mimicry, especially by young people. WATCHING a concert (literally, given that any music concert has an increasingly imposing and impactful visual component), being there, implies in fact a huge set of sensations that are related to the music, but are not the music. These are sensations that, especially among young people, are experienced with as much or more intensity than the music itself. There is a frenzy, we could almost say a hysteria associated with live concerts, very similar, for example, to what happens in football. It has nothing to do with the game, rather it is completely external to it. It does not matter whether the team plays bad or well. The die-hards always take charge of making the party, and the emotion can even emerge in the form of a fray. So, there is always an overdose of emotion guaranteed. Of course, when you comfortably watch a game on a sofa, a part if not all of this parallel emotion, is no longer felt. Something similar happens with cinema. Watching a movie at home, alone, does not give you the same pleasure as enjoying it in a cinema. Even if the size of the screen and the quality of the image are not compromised. It is as if sharing, the feeling of communion with those who are with you in that room, even if they are all in silence (unlike in sports), helps you internalize the story, sometimes translated into a stubborn tear that you avoid so that no one sees, but at the cost of an even bigger knot in your throat. It is also worth noting that there are even those who praise the imperfection of the musicians live performance, considering that this makes the moment unique and unrepeatable, to the point of adding value to it - the mistakes and out-of-tune sounds that always happen live, as opposed to the perfection of execution that studio tricks allow. So, it is worth dwelling on some aspects that involve ambiguity with regard to live reproduction of music and its domestic equivalent.

The human voice

Human singing has fascinated us since immemorial time because of the emotion it conveys. It is no coincidence that every day someone seeks their place in the sun, trying to make known their voice and singing talent, not only because of the appeal of music, but also because they aspire a career as a singer, given the influence of the human voice all over the world. These days, talent hunting, especially vocal talent, is brought to us in the form of worldwide television shows. Let us not neglect, therefore, the importance of the human voice singing, and its impact on the lives of all those for whom art, especially music, is indispensable in their lives. Now, the human voice is perhaps the most valuable asset of this new virtual reality in which we position ourselves with our home music playback systems. If not, let us reflect on the real event and analyze what are the optimal situations in which we can actually enjoy an excellent voice and all the emotion that human singing can convey to us. In a fado session perhaps, and little more. Or other small, intimate concerts, where amplification is not used. These are rare situations, which necessarily occur in rooms that do not allow the presence of a large number of people, so being able to witness them is a privilege for the few. It is worth noting that there are countless situations that could also be called intimate because they take place in cramped spaces (bars), but which still use the amplification of the human voice in order to level it out or even overlap it with other instruments, namely those powered by electricity and/or batteries, often resulting in a distorted voice that is tangled up in the instrumentation, making the lyrics of the songs even imperceptible. This (d)effect depends a lot on the quality of the electronic equipment used, namely microphones for capture and speakers for playback, but also on the volume. If we pay attention to this last factor and focus on larger-scale concerts such as pop/rock music, then it is the total shouting/cacophony. However, it is important to note that, even when voice amplification is not used, there are serious limitations to the way in which it reaches us. I am referring to the positioning of both the listener and the singer, as already mentioned in the introduction to this manifesto. Depending largely on the distance and our positioning in relation to the singer, the sound that reaches us changes radically. At a distance, the harmonics and nuances of the voice are diluted or not at all perceptible, taking away the pleasure of listening. Unavoidably, what we hear also varies depending on whether we are in front of, more to the right or more to the left of the singer, but obviously it also varies when the singer moves from one side to the other on the stage and turns more to one side or the other. Now, the new virtual reality has not only placed us in the ideal listening spot, at the optimum distance, but has also brought the singer right in front of us, always centered, always perfectly still, singing just for us. With close-miking, we can even hear the singer breathing, and with our eyes closed and the help of our imagination, we can almost feel the passage of air producing the vibration of the vocal cords. And do we need that? Of course we do. If we can amplify emotion, are we going to deny that possibility? In fact, many audiophiles prioritize the reproduction of the mid-range in their systems, pursuing with particular zeal the naturalness of the human voice and the intelligibility of what is sung. The modeling and the particular timbre of each voice are so attractive that they (almost) justify the path of an audiophile in themselves! At this point, I am led to conclude that a well- captured and well-recorded human voice – which is normally done in a studio completely separate from the other instruments and mixed with them at a later stage in the right dose by the sound engineer – can be reproduced on our home sound systems with a clarity that is very rarely achieved live. Returning to the motto of this manifesto, by functioning as authentic microscopes for the vocal cords, our today reproduction systems are able to emulate a real sensation of the singer's physical presence, allowing us to fully enjoy all of their vocal quality and technique, surpassing even the best we could hope for in a live performance, given the aforementioned conditions. In contrast to the mistakes that can always occur in a live show, in our home, the singer always displays his or her best performance, and is always there in front of us, singing solely for us, for as long and as many times as we wish. Once again, I stress that in this analysis we should not allow ourselves to be confused by the emotion of being in the presence of the singer, with the emotion produced by his or her voice and singing. As I said before, we should not confuse the emotion of the music with the emotion that comes with the music.

... / ...

 

[Spock]

... / ...
Sound volume / Sound pressure.

Concerts that use amplification are usually concerts for a large number of people, which implies large reserves of power, generating incredible sound pressures. This is the prevalence of quantity over quality. But this is where much of the energy that the authors/performers want to convey comes from, particularly in rock music - I'm not even talking about hard rock or heavy metal, where the emotion transmitted seems to be directly proportional to the number of watts used. Live, people don't complain when a human voice and musical instruments are amplified to volumes much higher than they produce on a one-to-one scale, without amplification, because that's the only way to make them heard dozens and dozens of meters away. And although we have already concluded that an amplified musical event cannot constitute a sound reference due to the deviation caused to the natural sound by this same amplification and everything else that manipulates (mixing desks), transmits (cables) and reproduces (speakers) the sound, we inevitably have to go back there to look at the distinctive characteristics of a live event, pointed out by many as differentiating and unparalleled added value in a domestic environment. Interestingly, there is a good portion of audiophiles who outright reject the hyper-realism of domestic reproduction, omitting or not realizing that it already occurs in the so-called live event, for example, and right away when the sound of an instrument or a voice is projected far beyond its natural range. And in these circumstances we clearly notice that amplification also works as a catalyst for emotion parallel to the music, literally adding energy to it. Even the most rhythmic music does not necessarily invite dancing, or even “tapping your feet” if listened to at a low volume. A higher volume of sound contains something that is much more contagious, something that intensifies the perception and effect of music on us.

And for this very reason, there are many who feel that this energy is lacking in home playback, even pointing to this aspect as a weak point in the comparative analysis with the so-called original event. This comparative analysis is not fair in most cases, given the self-imposed limitations that many audiophiles place on listening to music in their homes, whether to avoid prolonged exposure to high sound pressures for reasons of hearing health, or because they live in apartments and it is desirable/necessary to maintain healthy coexistence with their neighbors, or, lastly, due to the distortion produced by the system itself in its interaction with the room. Considering this last aspect as perhaps the most important and limiting of all, it is easy to deduce that it is essential to ensure that a home system has the capacity to play in a balanced and coherent way at high volume (*). Once the factors that generate distortion when turning the potentiometer are eliminated or controlled, there is no reason why we cannot emulate the natural scale of an instrument at home and thus ensure that we capture the additional energy that comes from the greater volume. Or even surpass this scale one to one, within the premise of hyper-realism and sensory amplification that constitutes the motto of this manifesto.

(*) While it is true that a system must play well at high volumes, it is important to note that it must also be capable of playing well at low sound pressure levels. Preserving all the information, the detail, the harmonics, is fundamental to preserving the musical message, and is a factor in analyzing and evaluating the quality and performance progression of an audio system.

Dynamics

Here too, live, we can experience overwhelming differences between the lowest and highest sounds. Stroking a drum with a brush or striking it violently has absolutely nothing in common. The issue of dynamics is, however, (also) directly related to the volume of sound pressure used. The reason why we are seduced by the dynamics displayed at an amplified concert and why they seem absolutely unrepeatable in a home reproduction, is due to the difference in volume between one situation and another. A very high sound volume clearly corresponds to much greater dynamics. Just think that if the volume is turned up to reproduce thousands of watts of sound, the difference between a whisper and a shout into the microphone can be overwhelming. Using the analogy so often used with a car, we know that a powerful vehicle can not only reach higher speeds, but can also produce much greater instantaneous acceleration than a less powerful one. The same happens at a live concert where, thanks to the power available, the acceleration and recovery of the sound is absolutely phenomenal. But is this dynamic something that a home music reproduction system actually has to replicate? Aren't these dynamics of amplified concerts, as well as the power that generates them, as inimitable as they are unnecessary, perhaps even undesirable, since no one is going to use the thousands of watts of sound available at a concert at home? Aren't these levels unrealistic? So what should be the minimum dynamics required in a home reproduction system? I would say that, for faithful reproduction, the essential dynamics should, once again and always, be similar to those naturally produced by an unamplified acoustic instrument. Of course, for this to happen, the system must be capable of, at the very least, equaling the natural sound volume of any acoustic instrument, without introducing harmonic distortion. It seems simple, but to achieve this, a system at its best in terms of performance is required, which implies quality components, matching cabling, fine-tuning of details such as speaker placement and, of course, acoustics in the venue that allow the full sound potential of the set to be revealed. It is obviously not the purpose of this manifesto to go into the details of tuning, but merely to reflect on what is or is not possible to achieve in so-called high-end audio for home reproduction and why we feel so attracted to it. And the truth is that we can legitimately aspire to a very realistic dynamic similarity, if our reference remains faithful in the comparison with non-amplified acoustic instruments. A good audio system can in fact produce piercing transitions, and can even be frightening in certain faster passages. (*) Dynamics, and their subjective perception, are, as is obvious, closely linked to and dependent on the sound volume at which one listens. It is therefore essential to be able to obtain good sound pressure in a home environment, sufficient to reproduce an instrument on a scale without distortion in order to achieve the sensation of realistic scale, but far from the need to reach the levels displayed in amplified live shows. Given the clear exaggeration of power used in these events, as far as the question of dynamics is concerned, the comparison with home reproduction is a clear mistake.

(*) It is not the purpose of this manifesto to delve into this issue, but I cannot help but point out a certain paradox worthy of reflection in relation to the frightening dynamics of a system, which may not be a sign of perfect tuning. As I once read in a Brazilian forum, in a well-tuned audio system, the dynamic transitions are never frightening, in the same way that when listening to real instruments, when they are not amplified, we are not frightened either.

 

[Spock]

... / ...

The detail

When I think about the issue of detail, I invariably focus myself on the issue of so-called classical or erudite music, and the issues that a large orchestra raises. First and foremost when heard live. Where is the best place to listen? Right in the center of the orchestra, but in the fifth row or the ninth? Some say that the best place to listen to an orchestra is… the conductor’s, of course. Only he can have a panoramic view of the whole, without losing the necessary perception of each instrument and its contribution to the totality of the musical sound message that the composer created and he, the conductor, reinterprets. From the all-important issue of tuning, with beginnings and silences at the exact time, to the most subtle contrapuntal details, for the conductor, perceiving the detail of each individual performance is fundamental to achieve the final result that he is seeking. And so the question of the positioning when we are listening to a large orchestra has to do with… detail. The detail of each instrument heard individually, which in many situations is lost and merges into the sound resulting from its combination and simultaneous playing with others. As I said before, in a tutti, try listening to the piano, for example. But not only the piano. When the brass instruments come in, many other instruments immediately become obscured. And from this we can infer the difficulty of capturing and recording a large orchestra. A huge dilemma for the sound engineer(s). Should we capture in close proximity to the instruments in order to try not to lose the detail, giving up the coherence of the whole, or should we focus on the homogeneity of the musical message, on that panoramic view, sacrificing the part, the detail? And how many microphones should be used and where should they be positioned? In short, as can be seen, large orchestras are a great challenge, even when heard “in situ”, but they also and above all represent a tremendous challenge in their recording/mastering moment, and, as is obvious, due to the accumulation of difficulties in the process, they represent a gigantic problem to be reproduced in a domestic environment – perhaps the greatest challenge of all for an audio system. ? It turns out that a good number of audiophiles seem to prefer precisely classical recordings that privilege panoramic vision over detail, largely because they sound more in line with what they experience live.

However, assuming that the genius of the sound technician achieves this symbiosis between the whole and the detail, can a good home audio system achieve this miracle of allowing us to hear all the instruments and the sound they produce, delighting us with their individual contribution, without it dissolving into that indistinct mass, thus making the sound experience richer and more rewarding? And if a domestic playback system allows us to perceive the whole and at the same time enjoy the part (detail), why neglect this possibility and sacrifice it on the altar of mimicry of a reality that, as we have seen, is itself quite fluid because it depends on countless factors, and therefore so often incapable of providing the pleasure we seek, instead offering us more noise than music?

Hardened in this refusal, some audiophiles who are more faithful to the concept of faithful reproduction of such reality (in the sense of representation) take refuge in what they classify as artificiality due to the “excess of detail”. Now, there is not, and there can never be, excess of detail. Everything that is in the recording, a system must reproduce. Whether it is the sounds intentionally produced in the studio and that are part of the music and arrangements, as Pink Floyd did masterfully, or the ambient background noises in live recordings, or the increase in volume to highlight the voice, as is so noticeable, especially in older recordings, or the simple detail of the microphone opening and closing at the beginning and end of a musical verse. (*) All of this, if it was recorded, must be reproduced. And why? Because when this level of detail occurs, it inevitably increases the listening pleasure that an audiophile seeks so much. Without wanting to unravel the concepts of audiophile vocabulary to the limit, I will say in a more simplistic way that detail is associated with harmonics that bring the texture of an instrument's sound and consequently all of its timbral beauty. And therefore, and contrary to what some people proclaim, there is no “musicality” without detail. There may be unbalanced, non-linear reproduction systems, which, due to the prominence of certain frequencies, make the listening experience tiring. This leads many audiophiles to seek out more homogeneous sounds, which in many cases can even be mushy, but which end up being preferred or at least better tolerated, simply because they are less harsh. The detail, I would even say, the micro detail, resulting from close-up recording techniques, is a positively distinctive characteristic of a home audio system, allowing us to hear what would be difficult or almost never possible to experience live – in the case of classical music only in that special place, that of the conductor. And if instead of a more or less indistinct sound folder, in “canned” music, as some disparagingly call it, we were able to hear and follow the melodic line of each instrument on its own, with all the detail and texture present, without losing these attributes due to their dissolution in the musical whole, and if this provides greater auditory pleasure, why not simply enjoy and accept that this new form of reality has undeniable merits?

(*) I will give Diana Krall's album Love Scenes as a clear example, even the opening and closing of the microphone of the singer's voice becomes evident in some songs, particularly in “I don't stand a ghost of a chance with you”. Listen after the pauses in the voice as the microphone's breath stops and then reappears when it starts again.

... / ...

 

[Spock]

... / ...

The timbre

In Burundi, drums are considered sacred. They are present in countless ceremonies, particularly those related to the cycle of life: birth and death. But what makes them special is that they are made from a special wood, which comes from a tree that only grows in the central part of the country. And tradition dictates that each musician should plant the trees from which the wood will be extracted for the instruments of those who will succeed them. And that way they preserve the timbre. Timbre is thus far from being an audiophile obsession, or rather, of the so-called audiophiles. Timbre is pursued by musicians and music lovers. Each musician, whether as an author/composer or simply as a performer, seeks a unique identity, their own style, a characteristic sound, largely based on the different sound they can extract from their instrument. That is why some violinists dream of a “Stradivarius”. Because it has a unique timbre, they say. And if musicians are obsessed with timbre, why not audiophiles?

Regarding this issue of timbre, I particularly remember someone who, a few years ago, on a now-defunct audio forum, summed up the main objective of home audio reproduction, aka high-fidelity, as the fidelity to the tone. Much later, I tend to agree. Because for us to perceive timbre as perfect, everything has to be correct: the absence of distortion and coloration, the dynamics, the detail, the harmonics... And perhaps for this reason, timbre is in fact the most difficult aspect to match in a home reproduction system. But before we go into the question of how our home systems reproduce the tone of an instrument, it is worth reflecting on what we hear live. We have already seen that, as a rule, amplification generates distortion and, consequently, distorts the timbre. But, in addition to the distortion naturally induced by various elements in the signal of amplified instruments, along its path and until it is reproduced by speakers, there are often certain situations that involve another type of distortion, some of it intentional and premeditated. This happens mainly with instruments that need electricity to exist and is used in a very impactful way, especially in rock and roll. This is the case, for example, of guitarists who intentionally manipulate the sound of their guitars as part of the creative/aesthetic process, whether by using certain amplifiers, which themselves induce another tone, or even by deliberately and intrusively altering the signal through pedals that exist for this distortion function. And so, in these extreme situations, it is legitimate to ask how can we know if we are listening to the right tone of an electric guitar, whose signal has been subject to the distortion effect, deliberately induced? How does the guitar really sound? How does the distortion sound? If another amplifier or pedal is used, does it sound different? And what can we use as a reference for our home systems? And how can we assess the potential verisimilitude of a home audio system, if the reference is so volatile? As we have seen before, it can be inferred once again that, especially in terms of timbre, the standard for an audio system can only be acoustic instruments, heard naturally, without any amplification. And the greater the verisimilitude of reproduction in this type of instrument, the greater the verisimilitude with the sound of electric instruments (distorted or not), or even with other sound artifices introduced by musicians and/or sound technicians.

But now that we have reached this point, it is time to ask: what is timbre, after all? The definition is complex, but in short, it is the “sound envelope” of an instrument that allows it to be differentiated from others. And when we talk about “sound envelope” we are talking about the beginning, duration and end of a note, we are talking about harmonics. Now, even when acoustic instruments are present live, the perception of their timbre, their harmonics, will inevitably vary depending, essentially, on the number of other instruments on stage and the distance from them. The same applies to that larger instrument that is the human voice. In other words, in timbre as in detail. If there are many instruments on stage, the perceived sound of the ensemble may be nothing more than a somewhat indistinct amalgam or, in the worst case, even a cacophony, as the result of the total overlap of some in relation to others, as it happens, for example and in particular, with instruments classified as brass. If this obfuscation is not so severe, we can still hear all the instruments, but we will certainly be far from capturing all their individual harmonic richness, all their timbral beauty. To fully enjoy the correct tonality of the instruments in live performances, to be able to hear all the harmonics around the main one, we would perhaps need to have a seat in the front rows of the most intimate concerts in the world. Let us then admit, reinforcing and recalling the conclusion we reached earlier regarding the reference that should serve as a standard for home music reproduction, that this should be none other than the sound produced individually by an acoustic instrument in a nearby environment.

But then why is it so difficult for a home audio system to reproduce the timbre of an instrument? Because there are two moments in which losses occur. The first moment is clearly the moment of capture, with the conversion of the real sound of an acoustic instrument into an electrical signal. It is clear that the better the instruments for this capture and conversion, the better the end result. (*) As is clearly evident in current recordings, there has been enormous progress, evidently as a result of the development of professional technical resources available to sound engineers. Nowadays, in a good recording, among other things, the instruments sound with a texture – an integral and most important part of the sound envelope that defines the timbre – that they did not have in recordings from 20, 30 or more years ago. In a second step, as we all know, the signal will have to be read, decoded and transformed back into sound when played back. And here, failures, losses, interferences and deviations occur in abundance, since achieving a well-tuned system, with an optimal relationship between components and between system and room is quite difficult. Or, as I also read on an audio forum: “The Universe is so well tuned that, a slight deviation and life wouldn't happen. Same with fine setting up an audio system. One little mistake and "life" won't happen.”

(*) By the way, some time ago I heard on the radio a person in charge of a publishing company saying that they had invested in quality equipment, giving the example of a microphone that cost €10,000.

 

[crwilli]

Keep going but you lost me.

 

[Spock]

It´s almost done !