Ron’s New System

[Al M.]

I could re-write your sentence replacing "SET" by "solid state" or "powerful push pull". As I wrote several times, many people fail to understand that in this hobby whatsbest becomes whatspreferred ...

Yes, clearly some sensitivities and indignations are triggered here.

 

[bonzo75]

whatsbest becomes whatspreferred ...

I prefer to think of it as whatsexperiencedproperlywithgoodmusicandrecordings

 

[Johan K]

I prefer to think of it as whatsexperiencedproperlywithgoodmusicandrecordings

And NO space In between.. LOL !!

 

[wil]

Ruminations on Transparency ...

Reading these last 2-3 pages of talk about 'transparency' has been quite amusing to me. Arguing over whether 'a transparent system is a dynamic system' puts a strain on the discussion. The audio words are sketchy enough; do we need to debate whether one is included in the meaning of another?

Nonetheless 'transparency' is a word embedded so deeply in the audiophile lexicon that, whatever it intends, I doubt that people will stop using it and continue to believe they know what it means..

Along with terms such as 'soundstage' or 'continuousness', transparency is a word about hearing sound reproduced or about the sound quality of components.. ... or something like that. It is not a word for real world sound. It is an audiophile word, largely adopted from the review language and possibly the most confusing of all audiophile words.

Transparency is an attribute (?) of which there is degree but no absolute -- a comparative word. "System X is more transparent than system Y."

Transparency is another word used to describe sound reproduction that is lifted from a visual context. Transparentem, presenting no obstacle to the passage of light. This is where the too-often-used phrase "lifting veils" and other off-shoots find their explanation. Visual oriented descriptions of sound reflect the difficulty we have in describing sound uniquely and the lexical dominance of sight over other senses. I don't hear sound descriptions adopted to describe visual phenomena.

Some audiophiles talk about "seeing into the recording" or "seeing into the music" -- a sense of bypassing all of the recording process to arrive unfettered at the original event. This does not seem to be inherent in the word 'transparent', but when pushed some will go there.

Probably just me but I like the word "clear" as the ultimate definition of transparent -- much easier to just say that.

Ruminations on Transparency ...

Reading these last 2-3 pages of talk about 'transparency' has been quite amusing to me. Arguing over whether 'a transparent system is a dynamic system' puts a strain on the discussion. The audio words are sketchy enough; do we need to debate whether one is included in the meaning of another?

Nonetheless 'transparency' is a word embedded so deeply in the audiophile lexicon that, whatever it intends, I doubt that people will stop using it and continue to believe they know what it means..

Along with terms such as 'soundstage' or 'continuousness', transparency is a word about hearing sound reproduced or about the sound quality of components.. ... or something like that. It is not a word for real world sound. It is an audiophile word, largely adopted from the review language and possibly the most confusing of all audiophile words.

Transparency is an attribute (?) of which there is degree but no absolute -- a comparative word. "System X is more transparent than system Y."

Transparency is another word used to describe sound reproduction that is lifted from a visual context. Transparentem, presenting no obstacle to the passage of light. This is where the too-often-used phrase "lifting veils" and other off-shoots find their explanation. Visual oriented descriptions of sound reflect the difficulty we have in describing sound uniquely and the lexical dominance of sight over other senses. I don't hear sound descriptions adopted to describe visual phenomena.

Some audiophiles talk about "seeing into the recording" or "seeing into the music" -- a sense of bypassing all of the recording process to arrive unfettered at the original event. This does not seem to be inherent in the word 'transparent', but when pushed some will go there.

Probably just me but I like the word "clear" as the ultimate definition of transparent -- much easier to just say that.

Being a visually oriented person, by inclination and profession, I can appreciate thinking of sound in visual terms. And I sometimes find it helps with the illusion of reality to visualize the players across a stage.

But ultimately, we all relate to music in the realm of vibrational energy and texture which is totally outside of the visual. This is the more direct mind/body/music connection.

(this is separate from the concept of whether there is transparency between the performance -- recording -- playback)

 

[Holmz]

But I don’t think that’s the real issue here.

What is the real issue here?

Yes, clearly some sensitivities and indignations are triggered here.

Does SET stands for “Sensitve and Easily Triggered” ?
Of is it “Do SETs stand for…” ???

 

[Al M.]

Does SET stands for “Sensitve and Easily Triggered” ?

Good one! Gotta remember it.

Especially Sensitive and Easily Triggered when not everyone embraces SETs as their personal choice. At least that holds for two posters here who are always very vocal about their preferences, which they think are the Sole Exclusive Truth.

 

[microstrip]

Being a visually oriented person, by inclination and profession, I can appreciate thinking of sound in visual terms. And I sometimes find it helps with the illusion of reality to visualize the players across a stage.

I fully agree - although I do not expect to see the color of their eyes, feeling the musicians in a visual way increases my enjoyment. I appreciate to "see" the size and position of the the orchestra sections or other performers.

But ultimately, I tend to related to music in the realm of vibrational energy and texture which is totally outside of the visual. This seems a more direct mind/body/music connection.

IMO they complement each other - no way one them obstructs the other.

(this is separate from the concept of whether there is transparency between the performance -- recording -- playback)

Yes, but IMO a system that destroys the visual information encoded in recording by whatever recording methods is not fully transparent.

 

[Kingrex]

I could re-write your sentence replacing "SET" by "solid state" or "powerful push pull". As I wrote several times, many people fail to understand that in this hobby whatsbest becomes whatspreferred ...

Totally agree. But I might add there are levels of whatsbest in any whatspreferred. I have bitched in my amp thread about my SET. But I would agree my SET is not of a level of others. And not to long ago I listened to a Wilson/D'Agostino system and actually really liked it. Normally I don't.

Sometimes I wonder how many systems are actually set up really well. If a system is set up very well, I generally like it. If its not, I don't care what the quality of gear, I don't like it. For instance, I sat in front of the same Wilson speakers as above with CH precision. But it sounded like crap. Bad room, bad setup. It reinforced I don't like Wilson/SS amps. But then I heard Wilson/SS amps set up well and I was impressed.

 

[tima]

Being a visually oriented person, by inclination and profession, I can appreciate thinking of sound in visual terms. And I sometimes find it helps with the illusion of reality to visualize the players across a stage.

But ultimately, we all relate to music in the realm of vibrational energy and texture which is totally outside of the visual. This is the more direct mind/body/music connection.

(this is separate from the concept of whether there is transparency between the performance -- recording -- playback)

I agree. As far as imaging goes I find it largely unintentional-and perhaps grounded in percepts and/or experience we had attending live peperformances.Perhaps it is our brain or sub-concious attempting to connect to or translate the vibrational energy into something we know as real. However it happens it is fascinating that audiophiles tie this to equipment and systems and claiming one has a better soundstage than another. Psychoacoustics. Maybe what we're doing is judging past experience. I don't know.

While we think we're describing gear I speculate we're really describing the hearing experience, describing ourselves. As you say, the " more direct mind/body/music connection." Granted something is out there causing the different sensations. ;-)

My point is more about the language we use to talk about this stuff and describe our experience. Would seem it may not be serving us well enough as we continue to explain what we mean.

 

[treitz3]

I think we have too many peanut gallery, wanna-be electrical engineers here, practicing without a license.

I think we should leave these technical electrical topics to members like Don and Ralph.

Electrical properties and sound to your ears are two entirely separate topics.

Think what you want. No one is here to tell you otherwise....well, they are.....but you seemingly will not listen.

Tom

 

[hopkins]

I agree. As far as imaging goes I find it largely unintentional-and perhaps grounded in percepts and/or experience we had attending live peperformances.

Imaging and soundstage is build into the recording. There is nothing unintentional and subjective about it.

 

[tima]

Imaging and soundstage is build into the recording. There is nothing unintentional and subjective about it.

Amusing ...

That one has an image in his head is not intentional -- you don't get a choice not to have it -- it happens. Imaging is a psycho acoustic phenomena; it does not exist objectively apart from the person having it. What particular image is had is totaly subjective to the person having it.

 

[hopkins]

Imaging is a psycho acoustic phenomena; it does not exist objectively apart from the person having it. What particular image is had is totaly subjective to the person having it.

Oh, you mean that to experience the recording you need a listener? Thanks for that insight

 

[hopkins]

 

[wisnon]

I cannot but cede to micro’s personal experiences Brad … however for my part I would agree with you , in that I found both Soundlabs and ESL63’s to be somewhat closer cousin’s than distant relatives … I very much enjoyed my time with Soundlabs knowing full well that I was giving up a little upper range clarity and that dreaded word ‘resolution’ for weight of tone and texture in the upper bass and mid fundamentals and harmonics , which was however quite addictive when immersed in an evening of Jazz and Single Malt .

Where transparency and accuracy to the recording was concerned … I would give that to ESL 57’s until they ran out of headroom and ML CLX Anniversaries imho, ymmv etctera .

Ever heard stacked 57s in a line array?

 

[cjfrbw]

Can't even remember what 'Ron's System' is any more, and I'm too lazy to go wading with hip boots in the abominable thread. Maybe a stickie with the latest iterations would be appropriate, although Clarysis is the star attraction. I gather the Pendragons are room decorations or gone? Jadis is yesterday's dream?

 

[Argonaut]

Ever heard stacked 57s in a line array?

I have indeed , my own setup for a while , and a friends , who actually went full on 57 psycho and built a four panel per channel array which actually didn’t work out that well in practice , however I suspect that It could have been implemented better.

 

[Holmz]

Can't even remember what 'Ron's System' is any more, and I'm too lazy to go wading with hip boots in the abominable thread. Maybe a stickie with the latest iterations would be appropriate, although Clarysis is the star attraction. I gather the Pendragons are room decorations or gone? Jadis is yesterday's dream?

It is a bit like tracking a hurricane.
Denmark, France, Italy…