Somehow, mention of “Musical Potency” has gotten buried in thread after thread, even those that started with the idea of laying it out for discussion in simple terms. The basics of “the Third Way” include the idea of “getting at” Music by listening with self-developed, targeted hi-fi systems, and there is a lot more to the idea than maximizing emotion, although that is no small consideration. Among the breadcrumbs Romy recently dropped is a fact that ought to be highlighted, IMO, namely that success in getting to a targeted part of the Music often leads to success in getting to “other areas” as well. An example might be getting greater “macro dynamics” from Bruckner then finding it “opens up” other Music, leading to greater Musical insight and enjoyment than one initially aimed for. There are a host of examples I might put down here, but I also want to re-mention the part about system topology, which comes and goes as a central theme here. Going back to Bruckner (though one might say, Mahler), one simply needs adequate headroom to “get to it”, if to get much from it. Sure, there is more than one approach, but some topologies just aren’t going to do it, whatever else they might do. For those who care about tonality and timbre, more headroom must include tonality and timbre, and now we begin to separate the audio wheat from the chaff. As everyone knows, no one gets everything, and every step on the audio path represents a compromise. What we settle for on balance is our own personal expression, even if we had someone else do it for us. The third way is simply a way to take the audio bull by the horns.

Paul S

Paul S wrote:

Somehow, mention of “Musical Potency” has gotten buried in thread after thread, even those that started with the idea of laying it out for discussion in  Going back to Bruckner (though one might say, Mahler), one simply needs adequate headroom to “get to it”, if to get much from it. Sure, there is more than one approach, but some topologies just aren’t going to do it, whatever else they might do. For those who care about tonality and timbre, more headroom must include tonality and timbre, and now we begin to separate the audio wheat from the chaff. As everyone knows, no one gets everything, and every step on the audio path represents a compromise. What we settle for on balance is our own personal expression, even if we had someone else do it for us. The third way is simply a way to take the audio bull by the horns. Paul S

PeterA wrote:

Hello Romy, Great video and I appreciate the description and discussion of the three approaches.  Your 3rd way is one that seems more active.  One where you can shape/tailor your listening experience for maximizing emotion, and if I understand you, this is based on recording, the music, and your mood.  I respect that. I actually met you once about three years ago when I drove David Karmeli to you.  You made us lunch and then played Bruckner symphonies on your system in the back room.  This was your old house in Massachusetts.  David was visiting me to fine tune the new system I bought from him.  His family was staying with you also.  Anyway, I invite you to visit any time if you want to hear the system for your self in person.  Bring your records.

Amir wrote:

I think I like David’s reaction to different sounds.

For all I agree with Romy about the part of accidental success, it’s fair to say, five years spent with ML2s taught me things about Sound I likely would never have learned without them, and very certainly those amps “upped the ante” considerably in terms of my expectations and desires from things audio. Likewise, my time spent tearing apart and reconstructing curated vintage drivers. Is it then ironic that I moved on from ML2s and vintage drivers? I think it is not in my case because part of the insight I gained from using and playing with the gear I used was to recognize the contributions and limitations of the gear, itself. Of course, this is not a problem until one wishes to move past those limitations or alter those contributions. And because the ML2s are so damned good it was not easy to move past them! In my own case, it was my relentless pursuit of Big Music that kept me on track, in order that I find a way to present that Music to myself in my home with more rather than less insight than I got from the ML2s. And, as Romy has pointed out, better for Big Music need NOT mean worse for Bach; quite the contrary is possible, as I have determined -  for myself. Romy's post above was not entered when I wrote the preceding, but I also agree wholeheartedly that the basis for the evaluation of gear is "neutrality". How boring is that? And Good Luck with it, as a practical matter of fact; but that's the Unwobbling Pivot, for sure.

Paul S