American Sound AS-2000 Installations- Far East (Tango)

[ddk]

When people refer to “live sound” are they limiting it to non-amplified music? Once you add amplification aren’t you now at the mercy of the sound characteristics of the PA and other amps/speakers?

You have to ask others that for me it's not limited to non-amplified though it is easier and more accessible without the amplification. The ambience and environment is also part of that live sound and has a direct impact on accessibility. There are venues that are just inaccessible like Madison Square Garden that I left after half an hour or less, the acoustics are omnipresent and in the way of the music and unfortunately many rock venues are pretty horrible and the only way to reach the performer is to sit up close and destroy your hearing. As far the as recordings go there are good and bad ones for all types of music not much you can do with the poor ones.

david

 

[spiritofmusic]

We have an overriding philosophy in my chosen career of osteopath
"Structure governs function, and function governs structure".
Ie both are interdependent, both critical to human mechanical function, both arise from each other and interact w each other.

For correct healthy mechanical function, your structure (spine/joints, muscles, brain/nerves) must be as optimal as possible, only with a good situation here will you function optimally.

But correct structure also comes out of function ie millions of generations of evolutionary refinement has led to function being optimised by natural selection.

Its chicken and egg here what has controlled what, and it's almost better to consider there's totally reversible hand in glove going on.

Sorry for such a long apparently unrelated preamble, but surely "detail/resolution" and "musicality" are also interchangeable and interdependent?

You're never going to get the musical attributes of tone and timbre without tone and timbre being resolved, and pure resolution of detail means nothing if things like tone and timbre aren't also resolved.

One without the other just makes no sense, and is a false dichotomy.

 

[Legolas]

You're never going to get the musical attributes of tone and timbre without tone and timbre being resolved, and pure resolution of detail means nothing if things like tone and timbre aren't also resolved.

One without the other just makes no sense, and is a false dichotomy.

This quote is excellent, thank you. Actually it applies to my experience of digital audio since the 1980's, and finally, with my current DAC (Aries Cerat) I can say both aspects are fulfilled, only took me 30 years to get there....

 

[Folsom]

??? So you are saying that IF we have a recording that has an emphasis on the different sounds of say a guitar pick and these sounds are quite buried in the mix, that it is ok if these sounds are not revealed at all...resulting in a different meaning to the piece than what the artist originally was trying to portray with his or her particular picking technique. So long as the playback sounds natural, it is no problem to lose this detail through lack of resolution?

The artist playing the guitar doesn't put too much thought into what the pick itself sounds like. They aren't worried about how much their breathing or chair movement sounds make it onto the record while playing an instrument.

Resolution over detail doesn't mean you can't hear a lot of information if you try. It means it isn't in your face because it's a minor part of the recording that shouldn't be distracting you over the fundamental notes and singing they're doing. But this is just what I like, DDK, and some others. Some people live to hear every tiny source of information they can get. To me the quality of the information is paramount, not how much information I can hear.

So if you think artists deeply desire to have all the detail in their music, - if so - please show me some pictures or articles about how they can't stop buying "grounding" boxes.

 

[the sound of Tao]

We have an overriding philosophy in my chosen career of osteopath
"Structure governs function, and function governs structure".
Ie both are interdependent, both critical to human mechanical function, both arise from each other and interact w each other.

For correct healthy mechanical function, your structure (spine/joints, muscles, brain/nerves) must be as optimal as possible, only with a good situation here will you function optimally.

But correct structure also comes out of function ie millions of generations of evolutionary refinement has led to function being optimised by natural selection.

Its chicken and egg here what has controlled what, and it's almost better to consider there's totally reversible hand in glove going on.

Sorry for such a long apparently unrelated preamble, but surely "detail/resolution" and "musicality" are also interchangeable and interdependent?

You're never going to get the musical attributes of tone and timbre without tone and timbre being resolved, and pure resolution of detail means nothing if things like tone and timbre aren't also resolved.

One without the other just makes no sense, and is a false dichotomy.

Love this Marc. Great to see your professional life informing your more important hifi life. Beautiful stuff.

From my design background this correlates to form comes from function and form then informs experience. That the shape of things tell us about how we then experience them. The very geometry of life sets the tone for experience.

Hifi is mostly about circles and lines.

That gear that most invokes radial patterns often lead us to a sound that is strongest at the centre and then weakens as it radiates out. Horns and their mid centric strengths. If the mid centre is too strong it gets emphatic and honky.

The more the gear works towards unfolding into lines like multi driver boxes, transmission lines, and the extreme lines like ribbons (and by extension in plane) panels these direct energy more from bottom to top create a fundamentally different perceptual pattern and experience of the sound. So the shape of a thing tell us about our experience of the thing.

 

[DaveyF]

The artist playing the guitar doesn't put too much thought into what the pick itself sounds like. They aren't worried about how much their breathing or chair movement sounds make it onto the record while playing an instrument.

.

Is that what you believe, well I’m not going to try and dispel your belief...

 

[tima]

If we substitute "sound" with "experience" in Ron's 1), ie.; "recreate the experience of an original musical event" then you'll have the distinction that I believe Ron intended.

Most of what you wrote which I agree with describes 4) which you can get from fairly modest setups when you know what you're doing. The increases in resolution in terms of accuracy, musical detail, tonality, timbre, tonal depth and range, dynamics, etc. get you closer to that live like sound, the glass in the window to the live event getting bigger and cleaner. The ultimate step is getting beyond the system or the window and actually stepping into that event, not just sonically but emotionally so your brain and body react to what one hears in a completely natural way. To get there you need a lot more resolution and the complete tonal picture picture of an actual not and not only parts or highlights of it which is what you get even in the best systems. The AS2000 is where you can step Beyond the system, the room and life like to an actual live event where you have full resolution. Even a single note from a good musical instrument is very rich sophisticated and complex, then you have the character of note changing with the quality of that instrument, finally there's the individual creating that note with their virtuosity and essence of self. This what you can have and get in a live event and what might think impossible from a recording but it's there. The purpose of the AS2000 is to bring out that information from the grooves and get out of the way, all the macro, micro, the dynamic, all the resonance, the decay, the rise, the fall, the speed, the attack, the sweetness and the harshness of a note and then the notes and their delivery but the artist, this is resolution. As in a live event you get not to just hear a violin but to know who's Heifetz, who's Haendel or Grumiaux; Starker & Rastropovich and then there's Casals. This information is all there in the better analog recordings and you'll be able to touch it when the system can resolve all of it.

david

Even when you can't get all the way there, the experience can still be incredibly amazing - a reason many of us continue to try.

I still have problems with the 'resolution' word. If it is either a bucket for multiple attributes or a way of saying "more of" those attributes, then let's talk about them instead It's either too broad or too amorphous to have real commication value. Perhaps it would be simpler if it just meant 'more detail.' The whole 'jargon' issue is a constant for me as a reviewer. Threads like Peter's 'attribute priorities' and this portion of this thread are very healthy and interesting, and we seem to be comporting ourselves quite well.

When I was a younger audiophlle, there were a couple times I went to concert with the purpose of gauging the natural performace against reproduction. At that time what I came away with was the absolute criticality to stereo reproduction of the lower mids on down where the ground, the foundation of support was laid for all else. And secondly the importance of tone, pitch differentiation, and dynamics to grasping that foundation. Sure its a treat to hear from our stereo a rosiny bow on a cello, the resonance of its sounding chamber or a tight pizzicato arpeggio from a section of basses along with the style and nuances of individual musicians - and such hearings help believability or suspension of disbellief. Who are the performers and what are they playing influences how I react to my stereo; at times I'll stop thinking and simply listen in awe to Horowitz. At the end of a side I find myself blinking and looking around the room as my mind comes back to me.

I probably will never get to hear an AS2000, but having been enlightened by my Monaco, I will raise my glass with you to say: Transducers, yeah baby!

 

[Tango]

The other day Shakti wrote quite a bit about his experience setting up vinyl front. Some might find his writing sounds a little self proclaimed, but I personally find what he wrote mirrored the way I assemble my system and also the way I approach “my” natural sound.

Shakti talks about gears should not only give very high resolution but also should not overly exhibit certain strong attributes. These strong attributes become “character”. I am in the camp for non-character sound. With less, hopefully, non character sound I can hear more of the recording and music itself because the sound of my system is not homogeneous. Many systems I believe are super resolved, hear everything see everything type. Resolution is to the roof. But some gears “enhance” this super resolution while making sound more homogeneous and even make the system lose musical contrast, the rise, the fall, nuances, etc. that ddk talked about. Sounds that are obvious become even more obvious. Sounds that are not supposed to be obvious also become a lot more obvious. Is this kind of resolution “natural”? This is what I mean by hifi see everything hear everything type sound and resolution. I also have gears that can manipulate my sound stage and can create immersive sound. I admitted I was once lured and obsessed by it. It gave me wow. It gave me excitement. It literally pours energy to me. But I don’t think the recording engineers fifty, sixty years ago intended me to hear the music like that. That to me is homogeneous music. May be the hifi recording of today’s recorded music like that but I mostly listen to music in the 60’s. So when Shakti said about preferring gears not having strong character in throwing out “enhanced” resolution or other sound aspects, I think we are in the same camp. Shakti took the words right out of my mouth with his quote:

Shakti :

”The possible resolution of the gear involved should work as a function of "natural" sound. If you listen to music, you should follow the beat

but if you like, you should be possible to focus on one single instrument, being able to hear all the details of the instrument in the correct position of the recording room. But only, if you focus on the instrument, not that this details are that evident and present, that it becomes difficult to follow the intention of the music.”

 

[microstrip]

(...) This information is all there in the better analog recordings and you'll be able to touch it when the system can resolve all of it.

david

I avoided referring to it, as this thread is on the AS 2000 , but since you highlighted analog to implicitly separate it from digital, I feel now I have the permission to say it is the same with digital. All the information is there, you have to take it properly. I recognize it is even more difficult to extract it than with analog, the rules of the game are very different.

 

[ddk]

I avoided referring to it, as this thread is on the AS 2000 , but since you highlighted analog to implicitly separate it from digital, I feel now I have the permission to say it is the same with digital. All the information is there, you have to take it properly. I recognize it is even more difficult to extract it than with analog, the rules of the game are very different.

I very much would like to believe that Francisco but up to now haven’t found it, at this level of analog reproduction I find the delta is too wide to even get close. That doesn’t mean that digital is bad or that I never listen to it because I do and enjoy it but there’s always something missing for me in the experience.

david

 

[microstrip]

I very much would like to believe that Francisco but up to now haven’t found it, at this level of analog reproduction I find the delta is too wide to even get close. That doesn’t mean that digital is bad or that I never listen to it because I do and enjoy it but there’s always something missing for me in the experience.

david

David,

I believe you feel so, and only pointed it because it shows a lot from your preferences - and perhaps also of the preferences of many readers - and helps a lot to understand some posts in this thread.

But this is the subject of another thread, back to the real AS2000 of a very few and the imaginary of all others ...

 

[PeterA]

David, where and when will the next AS2000 install take place? I think there are reports of five so far in these pages, one in the USA. Will any have your new rack? Also, there were some rumors that you MAY consider designing a smaller version. Would you care to share your thoughts on that?

 

[marty]

You have to ask others that for me it's not limited to non-amplified though it is easier and more accessible without the amplification. The ambience and environment is also part of that live sound and has a direct impact on accessibility. There are venues that are just inaccessible like Madison Square Garden that I left after half an hour or less, the acoustics are omnipresent and in the way of the music and unfortunately many rock venues are pretty horrible and the only way to reach the performer is to sit up close and destroy your hearing. As far the as recordings go there are good and bad ones for all types of music not much you can do with the poor ones.

david

One of the "secrets" to assuring the best sound possible at large venues is to get seats as close to the mixing console as possible. The mixing consoles are generally about 1/2 to 2/3'd back and today, most mixers are decent in getting good sound at least in their location. In the case of music being played too loud as it was for example, at a Springsteen concert https://www.whatsbestforum.com/show...the-Meadowlands-8-25-16&highlight=springsteen there's an easy solution. Earplugs! You can easily titrate these to lower the overall SPL by 10 or 20 dB in a relatively pleasing non-frequency dependent manner. The ear plugs don't have to be fancy. If I show up without any, and find the need for some, I simply take a small piece of napkin or tissue, roll it in a small ball, wet it lightly with spit, and off we go. But leave a venue because it's too loud? Never, if the music is good. You couldn't have dragged me away from Billy Joel at Madison Square Garden with horses. 15th row dead center was loud, but nothing that a little tissue paper ear plug gently placed couldn't fix. Can't say the same for the fact that Andre the Giant (or someone else who was apparently the tallest man in NY City) was sitting right in front of me.

 

[ddk]

One of the "secrets" to assuring the best sound possible at large venues is to get seats as close to the mixing console as possible. The mixing consoles are generally about 1/2 to 2/3'd back and today, most mixers are decent in getting good sound at least in their location. In the case of music being played too loud as it was for example, at a Springsteen concert https://www.whatsbestforum.com/show...the-Meadowlands-8-25-16&highlight=springsteen there's an easy solution. Earplugs! You can easily titrate these to lower the overall SPL by 10 or 20 dB in a relatively pleasing non-frequency dependent manner. The ear plugs don't have to be fancy. If I show up without any, and find the need for some, I simply take a small piece of napkin or tissue, roll it in a small ball, wet it lightly with spit, and off we go. But leave a venue because it's too loud? Never, if the music is good. You couldn't have dragged me away from Billy Joel at Madison Square Garden with horses. 15th row dead center was loud, but nothing that a little tissue paper ear plug gently placed couldn't fix. Can't say the same for the fact that Andre the Giant (or someone else who was apparently the tallest man in NY City) was sitting right in front of me.

You had a diffuser in front of you, that's cheating! I've been to a few large venues with great sound, I think the last one was Supertramp at Wembley Stadium back in the 80's. I gave MSG my last shot a few years back for Jeff Beck, but it's it for me. I have them earbuds on me all the time .

david

 

[cjfrbw]

One of the "secrets" to assuring the best sound possible at large venues is to get seats as close to the mixing console as possible. The mixing consoles are generally about 1/2 to 2/3'd back and today, most mixers are decent in getting good sound at least in their location. In the case of music being played too loud as it was for example, at a Springsteen concert https://www.whatsbestforum.com/show...the-Meadowlands-8-25-16&highlight=springsteen there's an easy solution. Earplugs! You can easily titrate these to lower the overall SPL by 10 or 20 dB in a relatively pleasing non-frequency dependent manner. The ear plugs don't have to be fancy. If I show up without any, and find the need for some, I simply take a small piece of napkin or tissue, roll it in a small ball, wet it lightly with spit, and off we go. But leave a venue because it's too loud? Never, if the music is good. You couldn't have dragged me away from Billy Joel at Madison Square Garden with horses. 15th row dead center was loud, but nothing that a little tissue paper ear plug gently placed couldn't fix. Can't say the same for the fact that Andre the Giant (or someone else who was apparently the tallest man in NY City) was sitting right in front of me.

Goleee. I thought I was the only one who did this. I take cotton or tissue to every live or listening venue, including the movie theaters.

 

[ddk]

David, where and when will the next AS2000 install take place? I think there are reports of five so far in these pages, one in the USA. Will any have your new rack? Also, there were some rumors that you MAY consider designing a smaller version. Would you care to share your thoughts on that?

There are a couple more delivered but the owners asked for privacy, the rest will get delivered as they come off the production line, the next one is going to NYC.

Most have opted for the rack, it's really an extension of the AS2000 concept. The pictures I posted don't show the basic rack if used by itself the AS2000 version has a lot of engineering built in that will enhance and expand AS2000's sound quality, in a way it's a new product category I don't know of any other racks engineered this way and dedicated to a particular part. The problem is capacity at this point Peter the racks will probably follow after the tts are delivered, they're massive works of art and very difficult to make.

The designs are all done for the smaller versions but I'm not sure if it's really what I want to do or even can do at this time. I still have a couple of other products in the pipeline to complete AS2000 system which is already taking all my time and not mention huge upfront cash outlay.

david

 

[Folsom]

I still have problems with the 'resolution' word. If it is either a bucket for multiple attributes or a way of saying "more of" those attributes, then let's talk about them instead It's either too broad or too amorphous to have real commication value. Perhaps it would be simpler if it just meant 'more detail.' The whole 'jargon' issue is a constant for me as a reviewer. Threads like Peter's 'attribute priorities' and this portion of this thread are very healthy and interesting, and we seem to be comporting ourselves quite well.

Definitely not. The words sadly mingle too much, but really are not the same for most audiophiles. They describe different things - as confusing as it can be. Resolution is hard to get and less common. Even some stereos using, say, really high res digital files, may not be able to portray it. Plus the digital ones often don't capture resolution as well as you'd expect. The one thing that is tied to, and part of resolution, is small scale volume tracking. This is something that most stereos are not very good at unless it is exaggerated with lots of tube/classD sound and sounds unnatural. Tubes can go either way, IME. You have a situation where getting that volume tracking can often be colored, or sterile and low energy... Also feedback affects it. How the feedback works can greatly define the quality of it. The problem is in many amps the feedback may sound not so good with many speakers, but it the only way to get near good tracking, and yet it sounds bad... It's complicated.

 

[PeterA]

There are a couple more delivered but the owners asked for privacy, the rest will get delivered as they come off the production line, the next one is going to NYC.

Most have opted for the rack, it's really an extension of the AS2000 concept. The pictures I posted don't show the basic rack if used by itself the AS2000 version has a lot of engineering built in that will enhance and expand AS2000's sound quality, in a way it's a new product category I don't know of any other racks engineered this way and dedicated to a particular part. The problem is capacity at this point Peter the racks will probably follow after the tts are delivered, they're massive works of art and very difficult to make.

The designs are all done for the smaller versions but I'm not sure if it's really what I want to do or even can do at this time. I still have a couple of other products in the pipeline to complete AS2000 system which is already taking all my time and not mention huge upfront cash outlay.

david

Thank you for sharing what you can. And congratulations on the success of your efforts. I hope to be lucky enough to one day hear your table in a good system.

 

[tima]

Definitely not. The words sadly mingle too much, but really are not the same for most audiophiles. They describe different things - as confusing as it can be. Resolution is hard to get and less common. Even some stereos using, say, really high res digital files, may not be able to portray it. Plus the digital ones often don't capture resolution as well as you'd expect. The one thing that is tied to, and part of resolution, is small scale volume tracking. This is something that most stereos are not very good at unless it is exaggerated with lots of tube/classD sound and sounds unnatural. Tubes can go either way, IME. You have a situation where getting that volume tracking can often be colored, or sterile and low energy... Also feedback affects it. How the feedback works can greatly define the quality of it. The problem is in many amps the feedback may sound not so good with many speakers, but it the only way to get near good tracking, and yet it sounds bad... It's complicated.

I don't know if I understand your notion of 'small scale volume tracking', particularly in terms of pre or amp topology. I would think success is incumbent on the source, the record and cartridge capabilities, the ability of the stylus/cantilever to register the change in amplitude as transcribed in the groove and the motor's reflection of that change in electrical output.

I suppose if a small change, which that might be, gets blurred through less than apt amplification, then okay. I don't know enough about how certain circuits are better or worse - more likely to blur a smale difference in amplitude - in such a scenario. Though I might be tempted to say (what a fudgey locution - might be tempted) to say that output transformers could be a culprit in such loss.

Is what you're talking about like reproducing the shift from pianissimo (pp) to pianissississimo (ppp) in, say, a solo or quartet? If not, can you offer an example?

Off the top of my head, addressing such doesn't really help us with the notion of 'resolution.' It seems it can almost mean whatever we need it to mean in the moment - at least given the length of our discussion here. What I'm looking for: is there a stable consistent meaning, sufficient in itself that it does not require more words or examples to express it. Perhaps my purpose with writing (exposition) is narrower or more analytic than needed by many.

 

[ALF]

Thank you for sharing what you can. And congratulations on the success of your efforts. I hope to be lucky enough to one day hear your table in a good system.

I’m sure that good system will become even better...

Cheers!
ALF