The Noob Linearity factor

[Argonaut]

Is that right?

Arnie also switched from tubes to solid-state. Maybe he's having a midlife crisis rather than a non-linear vector?

Actually he wanted to go straight in the deep end with “ Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range “ however being told “ "Hey, just what ya see, pal." Had to make do with a solid state 12-gauge auto loader

 

[bonzo75]

This is why I asked you if you had read something recently to prompt this thread. I immediately thought of Ron's comments about the PBN, the driver surface area, the height of the speakers, etc. He seemed to equate size with power and scale for big orchestra music. The interesting thing to me is that he has the massive four tower system with big amps for girl with guitar music. Then Ron alluded to your recent private and public discussions. Is Ron the catalyst noob subject of your OP?

Ron was just part of it. It seems anyone who wants the dream speaker is looking at massive towers big subs as ultimate.

Valve pre + SS power to overcome the negatives of SS is another commonly used approach that I think is NL. 45 vs 33, all other things I cited, and some comments made in WUOTS up. Chasing 100k dacs before their analog plus records house is in order. Look, I did get a massive leg up moving to Lampi. However, irrespective of whether a costlier dac (including the Horizon) is better, I think the better investment comes from records.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Maybe what Ron liked in PBN was coherence, dynamic range, the fact that drivers were well matched, instead of simply saying it did great because of size of drivers.

I have no idea. I think the M-T-M driver configuration contributes to coherency, as opposed to the low frequencies coming out of the bottom of the cabinet.

Also I really believe that you are much more particular and critical than I am. I think you have many more "deal-breakers" than I do. And that is, of course, totally fine, even admirable. But I think it explains why I think many more speakers are good to very good than you do, and it explains why I think very few speakers I hear are "sh#t."

I haven’t negated the value of size of drivers.

Of course. The sonic effects of the size of drivers, and in my view, of driver surface area, cannot be denied.

But I do not like Cessaro more than them just because it is bigger and taller.

I totally understand this. And I agree. As I said in my first reply to your opening post height is an independent variable.

In fact the tall size makes the Gammas less coherent.

I agree. The biggest Cessaros are darn complex speakers.

I do think Sasha 2 is a better speaker than Alexia 1 or the XVX or the various Alexandria.

Here is our different personal preferences in operation: the height and weight and grandeur of the XVX causes me to prefer it over the smaller loudspeakers even if the smaller loudspeakers are 1) more coherent, and 2) achieve proportionate scale, and scale up and scale down according to the recording.

With the Sasha 2 I feel like I never break free of listening to a small box on the floor.

Why should people stick to a paradigm if confronted with a better alternative? Especially as an active audiophile. I am not referring to those who just bought an early system and play some music while not caring much for the nuances of the hobby.

This I agree with, but here you are backtracking (which is good) from the opening post. My broadest objection to the opening post is not the concept of exploring other paradigms, of course. My broadest objection to the opening post was that you were treating as NL such explorers' rejection of that alternative paradigm if that alternative paradigm is one of your preferred paradigms.

 

[Carlos269]

I think the better investment comes from records.

This is inline with my experience that the recordings’, and now systems’, mastering is the single most important or dominant factor of sound quality. This should be obvious if you are experienced. Better quality source material will outperform any hardware upgrades in all but extreme cases.

 

[morricab]

I am not invested in anything except some records. Drivers can easily be sold and at best will go up in price, not down

That’s because you suffer from analysis paralysis…

 

[Ron Resnick]

sorry I meant Arnold not Arrakis Arnie. Arnold said HASTA La vista

Oohh, sorry, I totally thought you meant Arrakis Arnie.

 

[bonzo75]

Here is our different personal preferences in operation: the height and weight and grandeur of the XVX causes me to prefer it over the smaller loudspeakers even if the smaller loudspeakers are 1) more coherent, and 2) achieve proportionate scale, and scale up and scale down according to the recording.

I totally disagree XVX does any grandeur or scale. How can it scale, it has no ease and dynamic range or coherence.

For me, XVX is tiny compared to an orchestra.

With any audio system, our mind listens and projects things to real stuff _there is a mind mapping audio playback to real sound process). For me, the grandeur and scale of an orchestra requires that growing size, which comes from a swell, goes big, and then plays coherently at the tutti level highlighting different orchestral sections while doing so. These kind of characteristics are best with coherent, efficient, easy to drive speakers. And very importantly, the records and letting them play through the signal path. After that, you can project scale forwards, upwards and outwards by Altec multicells or backwards and up by open baffle like Diesis.

My broadest objection to the opening post was that you were treating as NL such explorers' rejection of that alternative paradigm if that alternative paradigm is one of your preferred paradigms.

Sorry no that was your interpretation. I was simply putting out an NL list. You can get yourself off NL without having to go horns SET. NL is just not letting go of some very early formed opinions that further exposure should negate, or at least confirm is not a mantra.

 

[bonzo75]

And before I miss, both chamber and large orchestra are important for system tests. NLs keep playing Stravinsky type stuff as a test

 

[Ron Resnick]

Sorry no that was your interpretation. I was simply putting out an NL list. You can get yourself off NL without having to go horns SET. NL is just not letting go of some very early formed opinions that further exposure should negate, or at least confirm is not a mantra.

Fair enough. If NL simply is suggesting that audiophiles should listen to and learn about types of components and types of systems which are different than the ones they started off liking when they first got into the hobby, then I agree with you.

The pejorativeness of "noob" suggested to me a normative directive and not merely a positive directive.

 

[wil]

What do you mean by “Stravinsky type stuff”?

 

[bonzo75]

Fair enough. If NL simply is suggesting that audiophiles should listen to and learn about types of components and types of systems which are different than the ones they started off liking when they first got into the hobby, then I agree with you.

The pejorativeness of "noob" suggested to me a normative directive and not merely a positive directive.

noob

1. someone who has just started doing something, especially playing a computer…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[bonzo75]

Fair enough. If NL simply is suggesting that audiophiles should listen to and learn about types of components and types of systems which are different than the ones they started off liking when they first got into the hobby, then I agree with you.

it is suggesting that and providing what I think is a checklist of NL attributes

 

[bonzo75]

What do you mean by “Stravinsky type stuff”?

Just some stuff to show off a system do tutti, there are various other aspects of musicality you can show off. While I appreciate playing some standard accepted recording for common ness like that or Royal ballet suite or such, there are many other passages and recordings and aspects that are available. There are some which get introduced at the early phase of the career. Like in rock it will be playing back The Wall

 

[Kingrex]

This is inline with my experience that the recordings’, and now systems’, mastering is the single most important or dominant factor of sound quality. This should be obvious if you are experienced. Better quality source material will outperform any hardware upgrades in all but extreme cases.

Agree but disagree. Yes, absolutly true mastering ultimately makes the greatest media to play.

But, I have also found that much better equipment opens up the library to lesser quality pressing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Kedar,

How does NL apply to an experienced audiophile who changes direction without (debatably) implementing a paradigm shift?

For example, zerostargeneral is one of our very most experienced members. While holding loudspeakers constant (Pnoe) he shifted from Mayer low power SET to Trafomatic Elysium high power SET, and from Vyger/linear-tracking/Red Sparrow/RIAA to Viv Labs/pivoting/active cartridge/no RIAA.

How do you analyze this shift under NL philosophy?

Thank you.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Despite you having some interesting things to say... linear "progess" on an initial path is not progress, swings of direction based on going outside your comfort zone is necessary to find a greater "truth".
However, we'd respect your journey and proclamations more if you had any sort of "interim final" system up and running, as opposed to just standing in your living room talking at us.
Where's your optimised idler AF1 beater, you could have got a Montesqieu type modded 124/Dava by now to play your beloved rare optimal pressings.
You could have a nice sweet Altec horns system running now, on Misho Wooden Amps.
You could fit this into your lounge, and afforded it by saving money on trips (surely you've heard it all now?)

We may all still be Noobs to you, naively ploughing the same furrows we did when we started except with bigger chequebooks.
But you're a Noob too, the analysis paralysis proselytizer, who confidently claims he's so past such prehistoric choices on hifi, yet has no concrete results. You claim you're way past Noob status, but in not having anything like a final outcome, you're still trapped in Tribe Noob with the rest of us.

I wouldn't trust a budding cook who told me he found the best way to cook a steak, yet never cooks steak at home, because he doesn't have knives...or a pan...or even a cooker.

Sort that system Ked, invite me over, and I'll tell the world your as to Noobs as humans are to amoeba. Until then, it's just words. And not music.

 

[morricab]

Just some stuff to show off a system do tutti, there are various other aspects of musicality you can show off. While I appreciate playing some standard accepted recording for common ness like that or Royal ballet suite or such, there are many other passages and recordings and aspects that are available. There are some which get introduced at the early phase of the career. Like in rock it will be playing back The Wall

Stravinsky is all about dynamic contrast...there is as much low level stuff in Stravinsky as tutti. A good Stravinsky recording can have some of the widest dynamic range of any recording....not sure what your issue is.

 

[Carlos269]

Agree but disagree. Yes, absolutly true mastering ultimately makes the greatest media to play.

But, I have also found that much better equipment opens up the library to lesser quality pressing.

Rex, I’m strictly stating the impact factor on sound quality. Most of the music that I listen to for enjoyment is not mastered very well, sometimes on purpose as part of the musical expression, and while a highly resolving system exposes it, warts and all, I enjoy the music not because of its relative sound quality but for many other reasons.

Interestedly enough, with my “system” remastering process I have been able to improve the sound of my WAAR system in a way that better suites “my” taste. Everyone has different hearing and preferences, when it comes to which sound qualities are important to them. There is no convergence of opinions on here, only divergence.

When your goal is simply to please yourself then that simplifies things quite a bit.

 

[bonzo75]

I wouldn't trust a budding cook who told me he found the best way to cook a steak, yet never cooks steak at home, because he doesn't have knives...or a pan...or even a cooker.

So even if he took you to a restaurant and you ate that and loved it you wouldn't trust because he is not cooking it at home? You realize you have an issue?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I wouldn't trust a budding cook who told me he found the best way to cook a steak, yet never cooks steak at home, because he doesn't have knives...or a pan...or even a cooker.

Hi Marc,

I fully appreciate your frustration with Kedar. While at first look this analogy sounds correct (and amusing), upon further analysis I think it is partly unfair.

If the putative chef never cooked a steak, I would agree with you. But when Kedar visits audiophiles, if they indulge him, Kedar aggressively swaps components in and out, and compares different combinations of components. So while Kedar is not cooking his own steaks at home, I think he is arguably a traveling chef who cooks steaks in the homes of the people he visits.