Those amps sound more dynamic even without peaks that cause high distortion…it is evident at all volume levels with all types of music. It has nothing to do with this high distortion/low distortion argument, which is a very convoluted effort to explain the phenomenon.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
No it isn't.
I have noticed myself that lesser distortion (including speaker distortion and room distortion), reduces "fake" dynamics while maintaining real dynamics. With less distortion the system may sound less "dynamic" on some passages because some distortion-induced hardness or tonal changes on peaks are absent, while on standard acid test passages the dynamics remain the same (or are improved with the changes).
It's a real phenomenon, Holmz and Ralph are right.
Sorry, wrong. It is evident that SETs and other no feedback Class A amps sound more dynamic even at low level listening (like in the 60s - 70s dB range when amps are pushing mW and not watts) when all amplifiers are far away from making high distortion. It is also evident in the microdynamic shifts in music that are captured far better with zero feedback single ended circuits. A zero feedback amp will sound alive even with background levels. When a SET is being pushed beyond its limits it doesn't sound more dynamic, it sounds constrained and congested...it is very easy to hear if you have experience with such amps. The low distortion amps, which have achieved this through the use of copious amounts of negative feedback, are missing a lot of the music and sound flat: spatially, timbrally and dynamically.
You can also hear this clearly when using high sensitivity speakers. A SET or no feedback triode Class A PP will give you the full voice of the system whereas a SS amp will sound relatively lifeless...regardless of the volume level.
Not exactly IMO - transparency needs proper dynamics, particularly micro dynamics.
Ok, nice to know about your preferences. But remember that many of us have experience with many high power amplifiers that do not "sound flat: spatially, timbrally and dynamically " on the contrary. Using extreme cases, I listened to top Gryphons and to the D'Agostino Relentless and they were extremely transparent and dynamic at any level. As I have often said, my choice for tubes is purely economical - with the same money I can get much better sound quality in the used market. For consumers usually whatsbest is just whatsbestvalueformoney,
IMO - some people will surely disagree - is that currently the real challenge to an amplifier are top high quality digital recordings , that are more transparent and dynamic than vinyl. BTW, there is a technical reason for it - as digital can carry more information than vinyl , sound engineers use less tricks to please the listener, depending more on the true reproduction of microdetails to enjoy listeners.
Surely some people can prefer to stay forever in the "golden age" considering that is was the best of stereo - it is an hobby of preference. IMO, YMMV.
Remembering that this is a thread on Ron's system I must add that , by far, the more enjoyable performance I listened of "girl on guitar" music was using SoundLab A1's and Atmasphere MP1/MA2 amplifiers with vinyl. Real size - perhaps a bit on the bigger than life sometimes, presence , detail, dynamics and enjoyable. Country music and jazz sounded really alive and particularly fine in this system. If this was my main music preference I would have stopped there.
Agreed. Are you suggesting that transparency is relative? If we know that a given recording captures the dynamics of a performance because we hear it on one system but not on another, I would argue that the latter system can not be transparent because it does not convey all the information we know to be on the recording. I would further argue that the latter system is not as resolving as the former because it can’t convey the full dynamics we know to be on the recording. Resolution is relative.
Dynamics are a separate attribute. Some amp speaker combinations are better at conveying that information than others. If differences are heard when comparing two different combinations, one combination is both more resolving and either transparent or not.
Last edited:
Indeed , Whilst I am aware that the 12 foot Nina Simone soundstage imaging that planar’s can at times project , may be a bug bear for some folks , however for my part I rather enjoy such a presentation were singer songwriter , crooner , string quartet are concerned .
Apologies Ron … Normal Service To Resume Directly ..
What are micro dynamics?
Or what is the definition of micro dynamics?
Is that a function of the amp(s) or the speaker?
———
I could envisage something like motor/magnet hysterysis where the driver cannot do a micro thing, and where a panel speaker or ribbon can. But those are known things in motors, and not something that is not really affected by the amp.
Timing distortions with feedback (In the amp) might be another mechanism.
However ^those 2 things^ are somewhat orthogonal of harmonic distortions and perceived loudness.
(And there may be more things.)
———
Back to Ron’s system
Transparency, dynamic and resolving may be independent things. But it is possible that dynamic and resolving may be correlated.
I sort of lost the thread on the rest of it… But with multiple amps hanging off of the preamp, I am still wondering how the hi and low sides are crossed over. (I may have been stated and I’ve forgotten.)
Sorry, but if you agree that "transparency and dynamics are two separate attributes," I don't understand how you could've written this post.
They are separate in the sense that we define them separately and describe them separately. And we discuss them separately, but when digging down into either one, there is some interdependence and overlap with the other.
Remember, we are referring to how the recording is portrayed. The recording is a given and transparency and dynamics are used here in describing how the system portrays the information on the recording.
some systems are transparent, but are somewhat cold and flat and lacking the boggie factor. other systems have the boggie factor but are a bit colored and not objectively transparent. transparent is more information oriented and the degree of coloration to the source........ and dynamics are more timing and energy oriented. the two descriptors are connected but still distinct concepts.
textures and timbre are combinations of transparency and dynamics.......action......microdynamics.
typically better transparency also brings considerable presence and vibrancy.
i do agree that both transparency and dynamics are relative. they are also the sum total of a system, room and media. everything.
Last edited:
Mike, if you know a recording to be dynamic from hearing it on various systems, and then you play it on a system that you describe as transparent but the music sounds cold, flat and lacking "boogie factor", do you maintain that that system is still transparent to the information on the recording? What you describe here to me is not transparent because it obscures or distorts the dynamic information on the recording. I agree that it is not tonal distortion, but that information does not come through and is not heard, or (seen) experienced. What if the system can not portray the scale, the imaging, presence that is on the recording? Can it still be transparent?
I think I view transparency, like resolution, a bit more holistically than is common in the hobby. I agree the concepts are distinct, but to me, dynamics is a subset and an attribute and is characteristic of a system that is both highly transparent, and highly resolving, just like imaging, scale, and presence are. Without these subsets, the system is not truly transparent or resolving to me. It is not just about hearing the maximum amount of information on the recording. It is also how well it is presented. I know my view on this is uncommon.
Last edited:
so then what separates transparency from naturalness? if you attach all these attributes to transparency it's just harder to use it to relate the idea of information. and i agree with the idea that the recording is a holistic thing; however sometimes something is very revealing, but not as involving.
visually we think of clear glass as transparent but it can be just patterns and colors and not seem to be alive and have energy. this is more my viewpoint. transparency is part of the picture and the more transparency mostly the better, but it's only one part.
Last edited:
I'd be very curious to hear what you think of the new Popori ESLs, which are both very full range and also easy to drive- so far of any of the panel speakers I've seen, by far the easiest to drive with sensitivities at 1 meter of 96dB. Benign impedance curve too.
I think I've mentioned this a few times, on this thread as well as on your system (Natural Sound) thread. The 2nd and 3rd harmonics do seem to be able to bring out certain details including enhancing perception of the soundstage, depending on phase and amplitude of the harmonics.
For example if the 3rd harmonic is in phase with the fundamental tone it will make that tone seem louder. This fact has big implications on our perception of how different amps sound different!
Some lower power amps (like SETs without feedback) do this because higher ordered harmonics, used by the ear to sense sound pressure, show up on leading edge transients where more power is required, thus causing the amp to have a false sense of 'dynamics'. I've said it many times that in audiophile conversations you can often exchange the word 'dynamics' for 'distortion' without changing the meaning of the conversation.
SETs have so much distortion that its hard to tell when they are clipping. But even at low levels their distortion is so apparent (and frankly, embarrassing) its easily heard. If you understand how the ear can distinguish between a country fiddle and a Stradivarius then you'll understand how profoundly any zero feedback SET is modifying the signal.
As a mastering engineer I have to challenge this. These days most digital releases have compression as there is an expectation they will be played in a car. For the LP there is no such expectation and so if the producer is up on his game, will supply the mastering engineer with an uncompressed master file (or in rare occasions, tape). LPs have considerably more dynamic range than most people have any idea, owing to the noise floor mostly occuring in the pressing plant. Acoustic Sounds, with their mechanically damped pressing machines in their QRP plant, has improved the noise floor by 15 to 20 dB, putting them within6-10dB of 16bit.
FWIW I never encountered a single project that required any 'tricks to please the listener'. Usually its figuring out how the engineer the cut so it will play on a run of the mill record player. If you spend time with the project even out of phase bass can be conquered. But mastering LPs costa more than expensive lawyers and that right there is why all the 'tricks' get used.
Hardly anyone actually uses 16 bits (96dB noise floor) of digital as compression is so common. In addition, any modern LP has bandwidth to 40KHz. I've cut and played back 30KHz signals in the leadout grooves by the label, so that old hack about less information as you get near the label is a myth insofar as 20-20KHz is concerned.
Finally, with 30dB of feedback typically wrapped around the cutter head and mastering amps (which have feedback of their own) the actual distortion on the LP is vanishingly low. Ask Bruno Putzeys what 30dB of feedback does and you'll see. 95% of more of the "distortion of the LP" occurs in playback. Topic for a different thread...
I first heard about them about three years ago and since then no new real technical data, information or measurements - just the usual marketing claims filled with the usual superlatives.
Surely, but I do not listen to music in the car and the recordings I mostly listen are not recorded to be played in such systems. When addressing formats I refer to the best we can get with them. As expected, my opinions refer to the music I mostly listen.
Well known recording engineers wrote a lot about them. I recently read an interesting article concerning how high resolution digital influenced, for example, the well known ECM sound - fortunately a few decades separate us from the early days of terrible 16/41.
I finally got to hear a set and they are excellent.
Yes. What this means is you may well have to play LPs to get the most dynamic version of the recording.
A friend of mine (Steve Tibbetts) has been on the ECM label since the 1980s. I don't think I know what the 'ECM' sound is. Steve does his recordings himself.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |