Ron’s New System

[morricab]

Well, Acoustat was founded by Jim Strickland in 1974 he could learn from the experience of the old masters ... Their peak period was in the 80's and ceased production in the early 90's. (from diyaudio.com)

We say Acoustats don't arc only if we like the sound and accept the technical limitations of Acoustats and do not read forums like diyaudio.com - we find there long threads of people reporting problems on Acoustats and refurbishing/repairing them, describing the intrinsic problems. I respect and admire Acoustat - they were the people who developed the mixer concept also used by SoundLab and have read a lot about them, although I found them very colored and with poor stereo image for my taste - I can say that I watched a skilled technician repairing an old pair and long ago I have re-built a pair of ESL57.

Curiously Peter Walker knew how to make stators that do not arc. But he could not guess that thirty years later the glue used in his panels would fail and production would change to China ... I have read some Acoustat models had similar problems.

BTW, a good friend still uses a pair of ESL57 with the original never replaced panels and the old KT66 Quad tube amplifiers - I was the now regretful guy who sold him the amplifiers cheap decades ago ...

I owned three pairs, all original. The oldest were over 40 years old at the time and worked perfectly. The newest ones would be now 35 years old and worked perfectly fine.

As to arcing, well they don’t, even when the panel slaps the stators. They might break electrically or from panel material being over driven and stretched out, or some other abuse.

As to sound, the last generation Spectras solved both the imaging and transparency concerns. They were superior to all quads except 57s in transparency and imaged beautifully. If you don’t know what the Soectra technology was, I invite you to dig a bit and you will see it’s a good innovation and superior to panel curvature.

 

[PeterA]

I'm back to having to say that transparency and dynamics are two separate attributes.


Transparency is the absence of some adulteration or fuzziness or neutral density phenomenon. More or less dynamics does not obscure or cloud the window.

Obviously not.


This again is mixing up two separate attributes.


Dynamics doesn't tell us how clear the window is.


Now you're just back to a re-characterized natural sound.

You still have not answered my question as to what characteristics your window is transparent. What do you hear from that transparent system?

 

[Ron Resnick]

You still have not answered my question as to what characteristics your window is transparent. What do you hear from that transparent system?

I think your notion of characteristics through the window is the problem.

See if this analogy helps. I'm imagining a tank of water. In the tank is Stevie Nicks, breathing perfectly normally and happy.

Excellent transparency would mean there is no color or dye in the water; no dissolved solids in the water to obscure Stevie when you look through the tank; no waves; no sand in the water; no blurring vibration -- just clear, crystalline, see-through water, nothing adulterating in anyway your ability to see Stevie.

Transparency is a singular characteristic. It is a spectrum with total blockage and opaqueness on one end and perfectly clear, see-through, crystalline clarity on the other end.

 

[Johan K]

I think your notion of characteristics through the window is the problem.

See if this analogy helps. I'm imagining a tank of water. In the tank is Stevie Nicks, breathing perfectly normally and happy.

Excellent transparency would mean there is no color or dye in the water; no dissolved solids in the water to obscure Stevie when you look through the tank; no waves; no sand in the water; no blurring vibration -- just clear, crystalline, see-through water, nothing adulterating in anyway your ability to see Stevie.

Transparency is a singular characteristic. It is a spectrum with total blockage and opaqueness on one end and perfectly clear, see-through, crystalline clarity on the other end.

What bikini is she wearing … or is that transparent too ?

 

[Ron Resnick]

What bikini is she wearing … or is that transparent too ?

 

[bonzo75]

What bikini is she wearing … or is that transparent too ?

we are all in our natural element here

 

[PeterA]

I think your notion of characteristics through the window is the problem.

See if this analogy helps. I'm imagining a tank of water. In the tank is Stevie Nicks, breathing perfectly normally and happy.

Excellent transparency would mean there is no color or dye in the water; no dissolved solids in the water to obscure Stevie when you look through the tank; no waves; no sand in the water; no blurring vibration -- just clear, crystalline, see-through water, nothing adulterating in anyway your ability to see Stevie.

Transparency is a singular characteristic. It is a spectrum with total blockage and opaqueness on one end and perfectly clear, see-through, crystalline clarity on the other end.

No, the problem is the idea of using visual concepts to describe music. Your analogy fails because we don’t hear her singing in that tank of water. You’re stuck on pixel count.

In audio matters, we are talking about capturing information at one place, retrieving it, and then presenting it to the listener in his room. Consider a girl with guitar recording. You hear the notes and you hear the voice, but it sounds flat and lacks energy. The image is a bit too big and the guitar is not close enough to her voice. From what you have written, you would describe this presentation through a system as transparent, and I would not not.

 

[Holmz]

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.

One can have transparency and still have distortion.

I think your notion of characteristics through the window is the problem.

See if this analogy helps. I'm imagining a tank of water. In the tank is Stevie Nicks, breathing perfectly normally and happy.

Excellent transparency would mean there is no color or dye in the water; no dissolved solids in the water to obscure Stevie when you look through the tank; no waves; no sand in the water; no blurring vibration -- just clear, crystalline, see-through water, nothing adulterating in anyway your ability to see Stevie.

Transparency is a singular characteristic. It is a spectrum with total blockage and opaqueness on one end and perfectly clear, see-through, crystalline clarity on the other end.

As they say a picture is worth a thousand words… I just leave this here…

 

[Al M.]

I think your notion of characteristics through the window is the problem.

See if this analogy helps. I'm imagining a tank of water. In the tank is Stevie Nicks, breathing perfectly normally and happy.

Excellent transparency would mean there is no color or dye in the water; no dissolved solids in the water to obscure Stevie when you look through the tank; no waves; no sand in the water; no blurring vibration -- just clear, crystalline, see-through water, nothing adulterating in anyway your ability to see Stevie.

Transparency is a singular characteristic. It is a spectrum with total blockage and opaqueness on one end and perfectly clear, see-through, crystalline clarity on the other end.

You still refuse to actually answer the question, Ron.

I hope you haven't been infected by Peter's confusion.

No, it seems that you are the one who is confused. We just apply logical thinking to the concept of transparency.

 

[bonzo75]

I think Ron is referring to the see through transparency of say electrostatics, where the presentation seems as if speakers have disappeared. This is different to the concept of transparency to recordings or ability to hear changes of recordings of upstream gear, which is not important to him and he might not have experienced to relate to the topic.

 

[jbrrp1]

What bikini is she wearing … or is that transparent too ?

Might be good to inquire as to age/era, as well....

 

[bonzo75]

We just apply logical thinking to the concept of transparency.

Why do you apply it only to the concept of transparency?

 

[PeterA]

I think Ron is referring to the see through transparency of say electrostatics, where the presentation seems as if speakers have disappeared. This is different to the concept of transparency to recordings or ability to hear changes of recordings of upstream gear, which is not important to him and he might not have experienced to relate to the topic.

I see. I had thought the discussion was much more general in nature referring to overall system transparency. Ron did not specify it when Al posted his definition.

 

[jbrrp1]

I think your notion of characteristics through the window is the problem.

See if this analogy helps. I'm imagining a tank of water. In the tank is Stevie Nicks, breathing perfectly normally and happy.

Excellent transparency would mean there is no color or dye in the water; no dissolved solids in the water to obscure Stevie when you look through the tank; no waves; no sand in the water; no blurring vibration -- just clear, crystalline, see-through water, nothing adulterating in anyway your ability to see Stevie.

Transparency is a singular characteristic. It is a spectrum with total blockage and opaqueness on one end and perfectly clear, see-through, crystalline clarity on the other end.

So, you CAN detect that the water isn't fully transparent. You don't see Stevie clearly, and you want to figure out how to improve that wholistic impression. It might be helpful to analyze what are the obscuring elements within the water that is fuzzing things up a bit (pigment, sediment, solvation creating a different refractive index, etc.). If you can identify these elements, then you have a chance to address them and improve you vision of Stevie. That's where thinking about the elements of sonic reproduction are helpful in trying to improve the wholistic impression of the music (dynamics, frequency response variation, phase, etc.).

 

[Al M.]

I see.

Unfortunately I don't see. I still would like Ron to answer your question(s).

 

[Atmasphere]

That's why I don't think splicing in dynamics gets us anywhere.

Splicing it in isn't a thing.

First before we go any further, if SETs are involved we cannot ignore the simple fact that the word 'dynamics' means distortion and nothing else.

So I advise to not use that word if you really mean dynamic contrast.

FWIW, if the amplifier is truly transparent, it will not be possible for it to not also convey dynamic contrast, because quite simply to be transparent it is being true to the signal, from which dynamic contrast arises. They cannot be two separate phenomena. SET owners frequently do separate them, but that is only because of the distortion SETs make.

I understand why SET owners like their amps; all I can say to that is if they get to hear a properly designed PP amp there isn't any going back.

 

[Lagonda]

One can have transparency and still have distortion.


As they say a picture is worth a thousand words… I just leave this here…

View attachment 150240

Ron went beserk on me a few years ago for sharing this picture ! Let's see if time and the new shape of the world has mellowed him out !

 

[Al M.]

FWIW, if the amplifier is truly transparent, it will not be possible for it to not also convey dynamic contrast, because quite simply to be transparent it is being true to the signal, from which dynamic contrast arises. They cannot be two separate phenomena.

Precisely my point, for amplifiers or any other component.

To your point of being true to the signal, again from Stereophile's glossary of terms (emphases added):

transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

***

I still do not understand why Ron stubbornly insists on separating dynamics from transparency, especially since he has failed to provide a compelling explanation for that separation.

 

[Al M.]

Transparency is the absence of some adulteration or fuzziness or neutral density phenomenon.

I don't even understand what that means. "Neutral density phenomenon"?

More or less dynamics does not obscure or cloud the window.

How so? Adulteration can also take place on the level of dynamics.

 

[Holmz]

Ron went beserk on me a few years ago for sharing this picture ! Let's see if time and the new shape of the world has mellowed him out !

I’ve p’rolly seen it before too.
That is the good thing about tequila - one either doesn’t remember, or they do not want to remember.

It pretty much visually sums up the idea of transparency and distortion, although the SETs might be more transparent than the ‘doorty glass’.