Sublime Sound

[bonzo75]

"
My suggestion to Peter would be
the opposite to Ked. Maybe Peter now you've discovered cheaper better options on tweaks, you might investigate cheaper better options on components"

How is this different to what I said?

 

[bonzo75]

Fransisco, we do not need a reference, but I find it helps, and live acoustic music is the place I want to start. I have also used other systems which I enjoy, which I suppose is more apples to apples. Kedar and perhaps others think I should get out more and listen to more systems, to have a more informed opinion about the possibilities or reproduced sound. I am open to that. I think I am slightly less lost than I once was regarding all of this.

I do find it interesting that KeithR is concluding a year long speaker search journey having heard many different types of speakers and systems. He may end up with a pair of speakers not dissimilar in typology and material to my dreaded Magicos. What does that mean?

Oh I like YG. I think they are quite different. That said I did not see him dem horns much, and his second favorite is still devore

 

[spiritofmusic]

Marc, Kedar is dreaming about his future Master Signature on his future tonearm in his future system. I listen to my Master Signature daily. We both want the same cartridge and natural sound reminding us of the real thing. I am able to listen to something resembling that goal.

Peter, I think you'll find that Ked genuinely believes he knows what's best for everyone, whether or not they know it themselves. Not egotistical in the least Lol.

 

[bonzo75]

Also, why do you quote Keith when his music tastes and yours are quite different?

 

[spiritofmusic]

"
My suggestion to Peter would be
the opposite to Ked. Maybe Peter now you've discovered cheaper better options on tweaks, you might investigate cheaper better options on components"

How is this different to what I said?

Oh, I mean the whole way. Find a sub $1k tt that does "naturalness" to a tee. I've never heard a Rega setup I didn't respect.

 

[bonzo75]

Peter, I think you'll find that Ked genuinely believes he knows what's best for everyone, whether or not they know it themselves. Not egotistical in the least Lol.

Well am not egotistical because I don't post everyweek saying I have a new epiphany about my system someone listen to me

 

[PeterA]

Here's why the a cable like Ching Cheng that was chosen on a 100% subjective basis is much more of a "tweak" vs a well-made "audiophile" power cable.

Speaking for myself, my idea of a good power cable is one that has been optimized for it's use by using science and engineering. Here are some design considerations.

- Conductors that are rated at about 108% IACS, so are much more conductive than the copper standard.

- Insulation with much less dielectric absorption vs typical PVC, surrounded by filler material with much less dielectric loss vs typical cables. Put simply, the insulation absorbs and releases less energy out of time with the 60 Hz signal.

- Electrical specs ideal for the 60 Hz signal it carries, this means the Inductance, Capacitance and Resistance are much more ideal vs a typical 3-strand power cable.

- Shielding that keeps power supply noise from propagating into the system.

- Grounding that is not run parallel with hot and neutral conductors, not twisted in the same bundle.

- Plugs that use much higher conductivity pure copper electrical contacts vs Brass

As I said previously, I have no issue with people choosing to use whatever makes them happy, but to call CC "neutral" and other, far superior power cables "tweaks" is totally backwards. CC is the definition of tweak, it has relatively poor objective performance and preference is entirely subjective. It's cheap, and that does not make it less of a tweak. It's simply a cheap tweak.

Dave, as a designer of audiophile power cords, I completely understand your position. I have listened to both the Ching Cheng and some fancy alternatives. On a 100% subjective basis, I prefer the former in my system at this time. We have discussed this before and what I am hearing in our private communications. Yes, my preference is indeed subjective and that may not correspond with what is objective.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Well am not egotistical because I don't post everyweek saying I have a new epiphany about my system someone listen to me

Damn, I forgot that this week. Gotta tell you about this change, Ked...

 

[spiritofmusic]

Peter, I get yr changes, and the mindset behind them. Your perceived uptick is all that matters. I remain perplexed that the Vibraplane has in retrospect proved to be negative under yr tt. My pneumatic tt isolation in my case has been unequivocally positive, shown each time I've supported my tt on alternative supports. Do you remain adamant Vibraplane is now not for yr SME?

 

[microstrip]

(...) I do find it interesting that KeithR is concluding a year long speaker search journey having heard many different types of speakers and systems. He may end up with a pair of speakers not dissimilar in typology and material to my dreaded Magicos. What does that mean?

Well, I can not find any meaning it that ... What is it supposed to mean?

 

[DaveC]

Dave, as a designer of audiophile power cords, I completely understand your position. I have listened to both the Ching Cheng and some fancy alternatives. On a 100% subjective basis, I prefer the former in my system at this time. We have discussed this before and what I am hearing in our private communications. Yes, my preference is indeed subjective and that may not correspond with what is objective.

That's more me speaking as an engineer. The result of addressing the technical issues related to cables is reviews like this:

A Technical Achievement

The ZenWave PS-14 excels in everything technical. As such, it exhibits some of the most lifelike experiences in the land of audio cables...

https://audiobacon.net/2019/08/17/27-audiophile-power-cables-reviewed/21/

Choosing a cable based on 100% subjective criteria gets you the preference of the person doing the testing, at least as far as how many samples they have to test.

I believe HiFi is literally the pursuit of high fidelity and it's not a derogatory term for a fatiguing system, but totally respect other approaches.

 

[bonzo75]

Well, I can not find any meaning it that ... What is it supposed to mean?

It means his new found sound preference is justified because someone who doesn't listen to the same music as he does concluded his search saying he might buy in future a speaker that is possibly similar to, but is not the same, as Peter's, while Kedar still doesn't have a system

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have listened to both the Ching Cheng and some fancy alternatives. On a 100% subjective basis, I prefer the former in my system at this time. We have discussed this before and what I am hearing in our private communications. Yes, my preference is indeed subjective and that may not correspond with what is objective.

Peter,
Why did you select only "fancy" products to compare with your current choices? To create a price negative bias on them? I can't understand the ending sentence - what can we expect from power cables in objective terms?

BTW, why not referring to the alternative cables by a more objective word, such as "more elaborate" or "audiophile"?

 

[microstrip]

It means his new found sound preference is justified because someone who doesn't listen to the same music as he does concluded his search saying he might buy in future a speaker that is possibly similar to, but is not the same, as Peter's, while Kedar still doesn't have a system

I would like to carry a civilized friendly exchange of posts with Peter in his thread. Could you at less post a smile in your comment?

 

[bonzo75]

I would like to carry a civilized friendly exchange of posts with Peter in his thread. Could you at less post a smile in your comment?

I lost all smiles when you posted how little you knew about 40s and 50s monos

 

[Al M.]

There has been mentioning of masking of details. I can confirm that the amount of detail from Peter's system is not diminished.

Peter mentioned that I was surprised about how well behaved his room is. I am indeed. Bass is fine without tube traps. Images may be slightly more diffuse than before, but location of musicians is still very clear, so I am not sure if I quite agree with Peter about the magnitude of the sonic changes.

My own room would be unworkable without treatments. Conversely, acoustic treatments in my room have none of the adverse effects that Peter describes for his. Just this morning l was listening to Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers, and the sheer brute energy of Freddie Hubbard's trumpet on Blue Moon and of Wayne Shorter's sax on other tracks made me go "whoa!". If anything, room treatment has made my room come more alive.

Every room and situation is different, and generalizations cannot easily be made.

I do overall agree with Peter and David on pneumatic platforms, power cords and power conditioning.

 

[bonzo75]

There has been mentioning of masking of details. I can confirm that the amount of detail from Peter's system is not diminished.

Peter mentioned that I was surprised about how well behaved his room is. I am indeed. Bass is fine without tube traps. Images may be slightly more diffuse than before, but location of musicians is still very clear, so I am not sure if I quite agree with Peter about the magnitude of the sonic changes.

My own room would be unworkable without treatments. Conversely, acoustic treatments in my room have none of the adverse effects that Peter describes for his. Just this morning l was listening to Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers, and the sheer brute energy of Freddie Hubbard's trumpet on Blue Moon and of Wayne Shorter's sax on other tracks made me go "whoa!". If anything, room treatment has made my room come more alive.

Every room and situation is different, and generalizations cannot easily be made.

I do overall agree with Peter and David on pneumatic platforms, power cords and power conditioning.

This is what Marc said too about his room

 

[Al M.]

The full toe out of the speakers had the greatest effect on soundstage in Peter's system. Jazz ensemble now sounds HUGE. I am still trying to figure out what that is related to; part of it seems to greater perceived distance to performers. It may take me a few more visits before I can say more about this.

I have ordered the CDs of Art Pepper's Eleven and of Count Basie's 88th Street, two of Peter's reference recordings, so that I can make better comparisons, within the limits of potentially different masterings for both media, LP and CD.

 

[ddk]

You make a number of incorrect assumptions Dave.

I don't think so.

The way I see it, you're using power cables that soften and warm the sound, removing the room treatments and having no toe decreases the ratio of direct to reflected sound so you're hearing more reflected sound at higher SPL. I would also say you're adding noise via the AC line.

You don't know what the power cords are doing nor do have any idea how much if any nor the type of noise to filter out of anyone's lines, nor if it's desired or not, but you want to filter it. What criteria are using about about adding noise via AC lines, getting rid of a synthetic black layer masking the music and background? Isn't that warming up and softening?

Hearing more harmonics is what Peter described by removing the tampon treatment not reflections at high SPLs, you're making up your own scenario here again.

Further, replacing footers with specific wooden oak blocks and using carefully selected power cables and setup is simply another kind of tweak, it's NOT de-tweaking.

He didn't replace the equipment's feet with anything, the oak is a temporary solution until he gets his rack worked out not to inject wood sound. Call it what you want it doesn't change the narrative or the transformation.

There's absolutely no doubt you can make the sound closer to what you'd typically hear live, I was just a show last night and listened from several different positions and unless you're near front row there is a lot more reflected sound vs at home.

So I get it, and I have no issue with it, I believe people should do whatever they want and achieve whatever sound they enjoy. However, I personally think this is not a de-tweak, it is simply a re-tweak and now it's tweaked MORE than before.

Saying this type of setup is more "natural" and "de-tweaked" is a very excellent use of language by ddk but IMO it's manipulative as who wants a synthetic-sounding tweaky system? Which is what you think you had before... laughable!

Since no one wants a synthetic sound why are so determined on people using highly manipulative, additive synthetic sounding products in their system and environment? Everything he removed had a masking and additive effect on his gear and room with even a more negative total sum on what he ended up hearing. What am I manipulating Dave? Isn't removing products that do things to the sound by definition de-tweaking and adding them in tweaking?

I also think we're conflating hearing detail on the recording, close-mic'ed by the engineer, that was intended for you to hear in a way you'd never hear live, and trying to make it sound more like you'd hear it live. Again, nothing wrong with this AT ALL, if you love it, I'm super-happy for you, but let's call a spade a spade.

I don't want to argue recording techniques and why, so let's go with you wrote. If the recording is any good De-tweaking, ie removing and not using sound shaping, sound altering, or masking products from the environment will at the very least, given the equipment have enough resolution, allow one to hear cleaner tones, more accurate timbre, deeper tonal range and diverse ambience closer to "real" and "natural"?

I described the OBJECTIVE changes and what they are doing, understanding them may be useful to some, especially since they are characterized as de-tweaking, when from my perspective they are simply different tweaks than what you had before.

All Peter did was remove products that had a negative effect on resolution and repositioned his speakers in the space for better performance, is this your definition of tweaking?

[/QUOTE]Also, as I keep saying, I have no issue with your preferences, but I think it's characterization isn't accurate. CC cables are super-tweaky. You can't even get the same ones right now, just like the Iron-Lung Jellyfish, certain Volex power cables, White Lightening Moonshine speaker cables and all the other similar low-cost tweak products people have found by 100% subjective evaluation over the years.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to understand the term super tweaky in respect to a mass produced industrial power cord with no claims of doing anything besides supply power to equipment vs a "Designed" one built from curated parts that all do something for the purpose of altering and shaping what you hear in the "Designer's" image !

I also use wood blocks for footers, SAE grade 1 and 13 wool felt and other mundane things for various audio applications. The thought they are "natural" or "de-tweaking" or whatever seems bizarre.

Use whatever terminology you like Dave for your application of materials wood coaster serve a different purpose in Peter's application and may or may not remain down the line.

 

[DaveC]

So, I guess you can describe this as more tweaked than before, but the bottom line is that I removed things, I did not add them. And sure, there is some fine tuning going on with my oak footers to balance the sound of my rack support, because in this case I am working with what I have and trying to improve the sound.

Again, the answer to this is available if you want it... isn't modern tech and science awesome?

On the room treatments, I'd consider the least "tweaky" setup to give you the most optimal frequency response and decay times. If you can post on this forum, you can use a Dayton Omnimic system. IMO it's a good idea to invest in one, it may give you additional insight into why you're hearing what you do.

While we can't know exactly how the system the recording engineers used sounds, as there is no exact standard, I'd argue that if the room treatments improve frequency response and the decay times are considered fairly normal, then you're hearing something closer to what the folks making the recording intended.

If not, you're changing the intent of the recording, which again, is perfectly fine if you enjoy it. It's really just the definition of what "tweaky" and "natural" and all these ddk terms really mean. Using "natural" and "de-tweaked" is loaded language in that nobody is going to say "I prefer my synthetic-sounding tweaky system". And the real truth is these things are more tweaky, not less, if you go by the traditional goal and definition of high fidelity audio and want to hear the recording as intended as much as possible.