Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Which came first, the desire for “Good Sound” or the equipment to get Good Sound from our hi-fis? Actually, it’s a trick question, since most of us start out with “something”, and we move on from there. And taking it from wherever we first encounter it to where we need it to be is The Sonic Ballgame. All the while, there may be “absolutes” that determine Good Sound, but I’d be hard pressed (and not motivated) to lay out what “Good Sound” is in the first place, except, like we keep insisting around here, it’s personal. One thing I am sure of, that I will stick my neck out to say, is that there is potentially good gear “out there” that might or might not have been brought into existence for “The Right Reasons”, and, in any case, no gear will make Good Sound/Music by itself but it needs you to make it sound good. Back to the subject of this thread, the MA-9S2s, I went down a rabbit hole this morning and I got a laugh when I wound up listening (on YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vn5LWQQecw )  to (MA-9S2 project leader) Ken Ishiwata’s own hi-fi system. On the one hand, Ha!. On the other hand, what do you expect? I think it is not even boasting to say I get better Music from my MA-9S2s than Mr. Ishiwata gets from his system. But, does this really “matter”? For sure, we really want it to matter enough to save us time by “assuring success” with our chosen piece of equipment, that the specs and the direction taken by the original developer will somehow add up to Good Sound in OUR listening room. For better or for worse, per the basic tenets of GSC, the only way to truly make gear work is to work with the gear. Anything less remains random and/or accidental. We hear Potential and go on from there, and I believe it is possible to do/get More from equipment than the original developer did.>>

> >

Paul S>>

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site