Ron’s New System

[morricab]

Yet not many people will be able to identify that a Stradivarius is being played in a recording (though they may prefer it's sound when comparing it with another recording), and those who do, probably don't need a high end audio system to do so. Morricab in fact posted video recordings of his ex (if I remember correctly) playing different violins, and the differences are pretty obvious just listening with a phone.

If a good system can't allow you to differentiate the sound of different instruments (and the musicians playing them) - even if you cannot name them - then you need to find another hobby.

I am no expert, but I can instantly recognize Johnny Hodges playing saxophone, for example, as many afficionados will (there are no super-powers involved). Does that give me any authority in terms of audio? No. By the way, I can do that listening on my phone...

Differentiation is one thing, but what about how accurately a system and recording reproduces the sound of a given instrument? Here again, I assume most people will be able to tell the difference between a violin and a cello, but very few will correctly identify which violin is being played. Assuming someone was intimately familiar with the sound of a Stradivarius, would that be helpful in assessing the accuracy of a recording and system? Perhaps, but for all of us who are not, you can simply record your voice (or even better, someone's voice that you are familiar with) with a good microphone and compare how it sounds on different systems. Results may be surprising...

All this to say that "natural sound" as a reference is completely meaningless unless you get very specific and use a performance and recording that you are very familiar with (you have actually heard live, and can perhaps even hear live repeatedly). I doubt that many here have done this.

Point of clarification, it was not my ex playing all the different violins…this is a recording you can buy.

 

[Al M.]

This is your way of rationalizing things, and finding some form of authority and validity to your choices. These distinctions are all in your imagination.

Actually, these distinctions are not just in the imagination. Of course a system cannot provide an accurate portrayal of an event, but it can provide an impression of believability. To your earlier point of each violin sounding different, that is true, but believable sound moves within a certain range. Once you're out of that range, there is no believability. A violin on my car radio is always recognizable as a violin, but it never sounds believable other than on the most superficial level. A halfway decent violin recording played back on my system has a believability that my car radio never matches. Of course it still doesn't sound like live, but it comes much closer, and to me it's a thrilling experience.

If someone does not approach things from a solid reference, such as unamplified live music or convincingly sounding vocals, they may go for a superficially exciting sound that is not natural.

When I was in college in the 1980s, a room mate was cranking up the treble on a Supertramp song, making the voice really tipped up sounding, among other things. I turned the tone control back to neutral, saying this sounds "much more natural" (sic) -- yes, I used that term long before Natural Sound(TM). Sure, it sounded less superficially "exciting" that way, but much more musical.

Apparently many people like their sound skeletal, without meat on the bones, and tipped up with unnatural energy in the highs, partially in the search of ever more fake "detail" and fake "resolution". That was the character of most (thankfully, not all) of the sound that I heard at T.H.E. Show in SoCal last year. Certainly, some of that may have been the culprit of bad room acoustics and bad electrical power in those hotel rooms, but I suppose some, or probably a lot, of it was by choice. At the end of my first day there my ears were literally hurting (even though I avoided the loudest parts).

 

[PeterA]

Actually, these distinctions are not just in the imagination. Of course a system cannot provide an accurate portrayal of an event, but it can provide an impression of believability. To your earlier point of each violin sounding different, that is true, but believable sound moves within a certain range. Once you're out of that range, there is no believability. A violin on my car radio is always recognizable as a violin, but it never sounds believable other than on the most superficial level. A halfway decent violin recording played back on my system has a believability that my car radio never matches. Of course it still doesn't sound like live, but it comes much closer, and to me it's a thrilling experience.

If someone does not approach things from a solid reference, such as unamplified live music or convincingly sounding vocals, they may go for a superficially exciting sound that is not natural.

When I was in college in the 1980s, a room mate was cranking up the treble on a Supertramp song, making the voice really tipped up sounding, among other things. I turned the tone control back to neutral, saying this sounds "much more natural" (sic) -- yes, I used that term long before Natural Sound(TM). Sure, it sounded less superficially "exciting" that way, but much more musical.

Apparently many people like their sound skeletal, without meat on the bones, and tipped up with unnatural energy in the highs, partially in the search of ever more fake "detail" and fake "resolution". That was the character of most (thankfully, not all) of the sound that I heard at T.H.E. Show in SoCal last year. Certainly, some of that may have been the culprit of bad room acoustics and bad electrical power in those hotel rooms, but I suppose some, or probably a lot, of it was by choice. At the end of my first day there my ears were literally hurting (even though I avoided the loudest parts).

Nice post. Maybe he will understand your writing better than he does mine.

 

[microstrip]

(...) This is where I see a distinction between a recording and system presentation attempting to be an accurate documentation of an event

Well, as far as I know it is not the main purpose of sound reproduction.

versus the hobby as entertainment

Although I do not understand why "versus" , it is the main objective of sound reproduction - entertainment and enjoyment.

and the pursuit of maximizing personal subjective enjoyment.

In the high-end I do not consider it a maximization process - mostly an individualization incremental process. What'sthebest is a good name for a forum, but an audiophile nonsense.

Both approaches may result in a connection to the music and having fun. I think both are valid. The former seems more grounded while the latter is more ephemeral, where anything goes.

I fail to see what you are exactly addressing,

The “something else” can be whatever one chooses. Since this is Ron’s system thread, it could be more woofage and a lower center of gravity.

I congratulate your audiophile expertise and courage - I would not risk any opinion on Ron's system

 

[PeterA]

I congratulate your audiophile expertise and courage - I would not risk any opinion on Ron's system

We are talking about what drives people to make decisions. And what they seem to like. We get glimpses by reading system threads and posts. Ron has expressed in many posts that he likes woofage and lower center of gravity. No expertise here nor courage needed.

 

[Al M.]

We are talking about what drives people to make decisions. And what they seem to like. We get glimpses by reading system threads and posts. Ron has expressed in many posts that he likes woofage and lower center of gravity. No expertise here nor courage needed.

Agreed.

 

[gleeds]

Clarysis sounded good with CAT in munich, better then Soulution..
Ron has great VTL amps i dont think it gets any better in the tubeworld .

Ron wants the SE magic - to him, it's not a coloration, but a rich tone palette density that has always sounded right to his ears. Ralph, I wonder if you think an active crossover to manage the transition between Ron's beefy push-pull amplifier and his less so SE amp would be a better choice. This has been my experience; yet your subjective and objective understanding will undoubtedly deliver a better perspective. I get that Ron's digs the simplicity of his woofer cooking arrangement; however, this feels a bit DIY from an engineering perspective for a system and room of this caliber.

Is there a full-range amplifier that does both on a speaker like the Clarysis? Ralph, I would think your MA-2 OTLs could be the perfect amplifiers. Two hundred twenty watts/channel of Class A OTL drive could check all the boxes.

And yes, at Munich last year, the smaller Clarysis driven by CAT amplification was pretty awesome to my taste, but not to Ron.

 

[microstrip]

We are talking about what drives people to make decisions. And what they seem to like. We get glimpses by reading system threads and posts. Ron has expressed in many posts that he likes woofage and lower center of gravity. No expertise here nor courage needed.

I was joking - just to refer to Ron system in a side subject!

 

[hopkins]

Actually, these distinctions are not just in the imagination. Of course a system cannot provide an accurate portrayal of an event, but it can provide an impression of believability. To your earlier point of each violin sounding different, that is true, but believable sound moves within a certain range. Once you're out of that range, there is no believability. A violin on my car radio is always recognizable as a violin, but it never sounds believable other than on the most superficial level. A halfway decent violin recording played back on my system has a believability that my car radio never matches. Of course it still doesn't sound like live, but it comes much closer, and to me it's a thrilling experience.

If someone does not approach things from a solid reference, such as unamplified live music or convincingly sounding vocals, they may go for a superficially exciting sound that is not natural.

When I was in college in the 1980s, a room mate was cranking up the treble on a Supertramp song, making the voice really tipped up sounding, among other things. I turned the tone control back to neutral, saying this sounds "much more natural" (sic) -- yes, I used that term long before Natural Sound(TM). Sure, it sounded less superficially "exciting" that way, but much more musical.

Apparently many people like their sound skeletal, without meat on the bones, and tipped up with unnatural energy in the highs, partially in the search of ever more fake "detail" and fake "resolution". That was the character of most (thankfully, not all) of the sound that I heard at T.H.E. Show in SoCal last year. Certainly, some of that may have been the culprit of bad room acoustics and bad electrical power in those hotel rooms, but I suppose some, or probably a lot, of it was by choice. At the end of my first day there my ears were literally hurting (even though I avoided the loudest parts).

I have not met any audiophiles who like "skeletal" sound. People do look for "clarity", but other attributes as well. And I have not met audiophiles who are not concerned with some level of accuracy.

Anyway, I have little interest in understanding other audiophiles. The problem is not with audiophiles, but with the compromises that most equipment introduce.

The most "natural" sounding vocals I have heard was with my Altec 755A speaker - but this speaker has huge limitations in frequency response. Can you blame someone for not liking it? The more interesting questions are: what makes the vocal so realistic, and can you preserve that while improving on other aspects?

I rather read an honest review describing both the advantages and disadvantages of a system, than have someone tell me "it sounds natural, I don't need to dissect the sound, and if you don't appreciate it then you don't have a good reference" (especially the last part).

 

[microstrip]

(...) Is there a full-range amplifier that does both on a speaker like the Clarysis? Ralph, I would think your MA-2 OTLs could be the perfect amplifiers. Two hundred twenty watts/channel of Class A OTL drive could check all the boxes. (...)

Good advice, IMO. As far as I know Ron's Clarysis has a crossover frequency around 500 Hz - I do not know the slope, but other models refer to 6dB. Finding amplifiers that can match is a lottery. And many times problem in the medium (300- 1000 Hz) zone show subjectively elsewhere in the spectrum-

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Good advice, IMO. As far as I know Ron's Clarysis has a crossover frequency around 500 Hz - I do not know the slope, but other models refer to 6dB. Finding amplifiers that can match is a lottery. And many times problem in the medium (300- 1000 Hz) zone show subjectively elsewhere in the spectrum-

i suspect that the big MA-2 OTL's are a bit too neutral for Ron's tastes. although about right for mine. maybe Ralph can sweeten them up? most OTL type amplifier's presentation is near and dear to my heart.

an OTL for Ron?......try the Joule Electric VZN 160 MKIV's. sweet, warm and bold up until the moment they explode. maybe too fiddly for Ron. they make great room heaters.

 

[Al M.]

I rather read an honest review describing both the advantages and disadvantages of a system, than have someone tell me "it sounds natural, I don't need to dissect the sound, and if you don't appreciate it then you don't have a good reference" (especially the last part).

Well sure, if you want to describe something you have to analyze and "dissect" as you call it. When I write a review I use unamplified live music as a reference, but I don't tell anyone that this is what they have to compare with.

I almost always refer to rock music and deep bass electronica as well; a system that can't adequately handle these is incomplete, in my view. All music must be reproduced well, no exceptions.

Of course, you can get big orchestral scale only in large rooms, much larger than most audiophiles have including myself, and with speakers adequate for them, but that is another matter.

 

[microstrip]

i suspect that the big MA-2 OTL's are a bit too neutral for Ron's tastes. although about right for mine. maybe Ralph can sweeten them up? most OTL type amplifier's presentation is near and dear to my heart.

Yes, it was a characteristic of the MA-2 - extreme neutrality. And each monoblock has six 6SN7, tube swapping could be a problem.

The early version using 12AT7 and 12AX7 tubes was sweater sounding, more colored - a good friend preferred it to the more neutral version 3 and still owns it.

an OTL for Ron?......try the Joule Electric VZN 160 MKIV's. sweet, warm and bold up until the moment they explode. maybe too fiddly for Ron. they make great room heaters.

As far as I was told the problem with the Joule Electric VZN 160 was finding good, matched, stable and long lasting 6c33's and feeding them with a constant mains. The 6c33 tube had not been designed for audio amplifiers!

 

[andromedaaudio]

Ron wants the SE magic - to him, it's not a coloration, but a rich tone palette density that has always sounded right to his ears. Ralph, I wonder if you think an active crossover to manage the transition between Ron's beefy push-pull amplifier and his less so SE amp would be a better choice. This has been my experience; yet your subjective and objective understanding will undoubtedly deliver a better perspective. I get that Ron's digs the simplicity of his woofer cooking arrangement; however, this feels a bit DIY from an engineering perspective for a system and room of this caliber.

Is there a full-range amplifier that does both on a speaker like the Clarysis? Ralph, I would think your MA-2 OTLs could be the perfect amplifiers. Two hundred twenty watts/channel of Class A OTL drive could check all the boxes.

And yes, at Munich last year, the smaller Clarysis driven by CAT amplification was pretty awesome to my taste, but not to Ron.

He probably has the wrong transducer then for it .
SE are probably not powerfull enough

 

[Ron Resnick]

So far I like these RCA 5692 red base tubes.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Joule Electric VZN 160 MKIV's. sweet, warm and bold up until the moment they explode. maybe too fiddly for Ron. they make great room heaters.

I researched the big Joule Electras a long time ago.

I'm sure I would love the sound. But I would not be able to relax with the ever-present insta-blow risk.

 

[Ron Resnick]

For me planar dipoles have always held an advantage in believably reproducing somebody singing in front of me over other types of speakers. As much as I love my friend's nearby all-tube, all-analog AG Trio G3 system, the great superiority I hear from that system versus my system on classical and jazz evaporates on vocals.

I hear from the Mastersounds into the Clarisys Studios the most believable reproduction of vocals I have heard in my room; maybe the most believable reproduction of vocals I have ever heard anywhere.

We all know what the human voice sounds like. My primary music genre interest is vocals.

My reference for my stereo is not "unamplified acoustic music in a real space." If my primary music genre interest were classical or jazz, or classical and jazz, then my reference absolutely would be "unamplified acoustic music in a real space." This is the only reference that makes sense to me for those genres of music.

But for my most important genre of music I ask myself a very simple question into which is distilled a lot of potentially numerous and complex sonic attributes. I ask myself very simply: "Does this sound more like or less like a real person is singing to me in this room." This is all I care about. This is my only barometer.

The current set-up sounds the most like Diana Krall is singing "A Case of You" to me in my room that I have thus far achieved.

So I am hearing some magic from the Italians. I just need to ply them with some Barolo to reduce their irritability.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I had intended to spend the whole day doing exercise. But, instead, I spent the whole day doing audio.

I played the system with the Italians full-range. I played the speakers with the Frenchies full-range. I played the system in woofer-cooking, tri-amped, Frankenstein mode.

After hearing the resolution and breath of life of the PSET MastersounDs -- exactly what I was hoping for with this risky, ears unheard bet -- I don't really want to go back to the Jadis.

 

[bonzo75]

My reference for my stereo is not "unamplified acoustic music in a real space." If my primary music genre interest were classical or jazz, or classical and jazz, then my reference absolutely would be "unamplified acoustic music in a real space." This is the only reference that makes sense to me for those genres of music.

The level of myopia and frequency of repetition suggests a bot.

 

[bonzo75]

I played the system with the Italians full-range. I played the speakers with the Frenchies full-range. I played the system in woofer-cooking, tri-amped, Frankenstein mode.

After hearing the resolution and breath of life of the PSET MastersounDs -- exactly what I was hoping for with this risky, ears unheard bet -- I don't really want to go back to the Jadis.

So what changed? Under what configuration did you hear this that you had not heard before