Do you spend more time analyzing the sound of your system, worrying it could be better?

@hilde45  I like your philosophy.

Has anyone noticed that there is a preponderance of men in this hobby? It is in part driven by the instinctive nature of men. We like tools, tools to do just about anything. A car is a tool to get places. A saw is a tool to cut up wood, a stereo is a tool to listen to music. Aside from being extremely vicious creatures it is one of the main reasons humans are so successful.   I think some of us are miffed by the extreme cost of some equipment and feel they could never have a great system because they can not afford a SAT arm. We come up with creative reasons to justify the system we have. This is IMHO a defeatist aptitude. Anyone can build a great system for reasonable money. It takes knowledge and creativity. What makes it difficult is having to wade through the mountains of BS that surround this hobby.

You can get off the train at any time you want. I like the ride and prefer to stay on it. But, most of the time I am analyzing now it is not so much the system as it is the recording. I know exactly where the weaknesses in my system are and have a plan to correct them. It should only take me another 20 years or so. 

I forgot to mention, "sounds good" is defined by the listener, not the system. 

@mijostyn and many of us males are tools. Present company excluded.

 We like tools, tools to do just about anything. A car is a tool to get places. A saw is a tool to cut up wood, a stereo is a tool to listen to music.

Once a system is thoughtfully put together, dialed in, used for a length of time and sounds good for what it is - no.

Aside from tubes/styli I have not made any changes to my main setup in over a decade (I like it as is).

I recently (5+ weeks ago) put together a mini system to listen to CD’s while at the computer.

As the new setup was made from both new and old electronics/speakers/cables (didn’t sound too hot for the first couple of weeks) I "am" listening for changes in the SQ.

Two new/unfamiliar to me parts of the new setup are a Tripp-lite surge protector and Canare 4S11 speaker cable.

If I’m not satisfied with the sound after six months, or so, I will probably start by replacing the Canare with some of the 47 Labs OTA cable that I have been using in two other systems for the past 15-20 years (I have @ least 100’ left), or maybe try some Neotech 22 gauge solid core copper hookup wire (save the OTA for a rainy day).

If that doesn’t do it I’ll borrow a power conditioner/surge protector from the main rig.

I’ve been using a pretty much the same mini system in the living room for 15 years (duplicate Sharp SD-EX111/Polk RT15i speakers) so have an idea of how it should sound.

http://www.laaudiofile.com/sdex111.html

DeKay

I have an ARCAM AVR 550, Paradigm Prestige AVR, BlueSound Node 2i, OPPO 105, two REL SHO's.  I have a dealer that would sell me a brand new Luxman 509 for $7,000 ($3,000 off).  He would also sell Focal Kanta 2's speakers for $6,000 brand new.  The reason why I purchased the ARCAM was to be able to watch TV and movies through speakers.  I have not added the rear surround speakers yet because my wife won't allow me to buy them.  I thought at the time the ARCAM was more audiophile quality than the large Murantz I have in the family room.  I have been thinking of adding the Luxman to my ARCAM for 2 channel listening.  However, is it better to upgrade my speakers to the Kanta's.  When I first started I listened to Focal Aria's and even the 848's lack bass.  I think my REL's would fill in the bass now.  Who do you believe?  What makes the most sense.  So far, the majority in the group feel spending money on the source is better than adding speakers.  I have always thought the opposite.  What ever I do, when upgrading my speakers, I will be searching for the most efficient.  This group is certainly knowledgeable.