American Sound, "The Absolute Nothing"
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Yes, I do like theories. But I have always said that implementation trumps theory. This is why, for example, I am not dogmatic about things like belt drive versus rim drive versus direct drive. Different theories can get you to equally emotionally-involving music reproduction places when implemented practically.
Far more than mere theories what I really like to understand is how theories translate into practical things we actually can hear on an A/B basis.
Attempting to control who posts? What are you talking about?
I added that only because I wanted to make sure hb22 didn't think I was picking on him or something since I followed up with a barrage of questions to him just because he kindly replied to my question to you.
Last edited:
What is one example of two different theories on turntable design they have have gotten you to the exact same emotionally involving music reproduction place? And how did you isolate the two theories from all the other variables in the system unless it was a direct AB comparison? And even then, can you generalize about drive types independent of implementation and other design choices for the final sound?
I agree. But you don’t have the patience to experiment. Have you directly compared your Denon DD table to your Brinkmann in your system to see how different theories (approaches) translate into what you hear? What a great opportunity to learn.
Do you think you have to hear the results of the theories to understand how they translate into "practical things we actually can hear on an A/B basis"? Do you have to hear it, or is it enough to have the "we" describe it somehow? That would imply some consensus, something I find rare in this hobby.
Last edited:
hb22, I agree that free spin time is an indicator of build quality. I am not sure if it counts more or less. I prefer both high build quality and a heavy platter on a solid base.
As the platter freely spins to rest, I want as many of the early turns to be as close in speed and time as possible. In other words, once the drive is cut, the longer the platter continues to spin at proper speed, the better. Not only is this an indication of build quality, but it is also an indication of how much influence the platter needs from the motor to maintain proper speed.
Edit: I understand what you mean about that last turn too. How smooth and silent and long it is matters. I found this out as I recorded my video as the platter came to rest extremely gradually.
Last edited:
These are very valid questions, but as with almost everything in this hobby, it is virtually impossible to isolate all other variables in order to test in a methodologically principle way the theory under examination. If we required this level of analytical integrity in general, we would have little to talk about here on WBF.
What is great about your set-up is that you can compare directly different cartridges because they are on the same tonearm and on the same turntable and in the same system. You are able to change only one variable. That is truly methodologically valid. But much of what we discuss here, except for comparing two different components in the same exact system (two different line stages, two different power cables, two different DACs, etc.) does not rise to this level of methodological legitimacy.
So, no, I don't have next to my Opus 1 on Reed 5T on Brinkmann balance an Opus 1 on Vision on Vyger for a direct comparison.
All I can tell you, and I stipulate that this, of course, is totally methodologically invalid, is that I recall from listening to audioquattr's system a similar level of emotional engagement that I experience here at home.
Pretty much, yes. But again different cartridge and a different tonearm. The Denon set-up does an amazing job with that Hana SL cartridge for an all-in price of about $1,700. Now that sound is value for money!
But the Brinkmann set-up increases transparency and resolves more information and sounds more delicate and nuanced and refined.
Last edited:
I have to hear the results of the theories otherwise the theories do not translate into practical things we can actually hear.
In this hobby I believe audiophiles often embrace a theory and buy a component which implements that theory without actually testing the theory in practice in a methodologically valid way in terms of how the embraced theory results in a particular sound versus how a different theory underlying a competing component might result in a different sound.
Yes. Without relitigating the endless discussion about A/B testing, I believe many audiophiles often talk themselves into things they want to believe, or often simply believe what they want to believe, and that expectation bias or some other bias or invalid methodological comparison gets them to the conclusion they want. But this is totally fine. It's a hobby! We're not trying to cure liver cancer.
In the context we are discussing presently I think that a platter that spins freely for a long time is a cool thing. But the theory that this feature contributes to good sound, or the theory that this feature reduces noise through the speakers, doesn't tell me anything about the actual sonic impact of this feature in practice.
For example there would have to be a way to increase the friction on the platter after power is removed to slow the platter down in half or in one-third or in one-tenth the time. Then you could assess the sonic relevance of the free spin time in a direct comparison. And to make sure that we are not misled by expectation bias that longer free spin time results in a greater sense of sonic "ease" I would want to do it this test on long term blind A/B basis.
In a totally different context I recently experimented with using the dual outputs of a preamp. Many preamps have dual outputs, and, unless they are simply wired in parallel together, they should be buffered in some way and they should be able to drive two separate pairs of long interconnects without diminution in sound quality.
In theory, the only possible detriment should be a roll-off of highs due to capacitance in the interconnects. In practice I felt like something else was going on. There was some diminution in separation or transparency or something when both preamp outputs were used. This was confusing because this was not supposed to happen. And I might be totally wrong, as I did not do this experiment with an assistant on a blind A/B basis.
But I came away from the comparison with the feeling that there might be more going on with dual preamp outputs with long interconnects than simply capacitance and high frequency roll-off.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.
Last edited:
Well, I guess this will not go much further. You said you want to better understand the theory behind various designs and wanted to know how that translates into what we hear. One way to better understand that is to actually listen in isolation and with direct comparisons. Designers and and some hobbyists actually do that. If you do not do this for reasons of lack of patience or interest or opportunity or whatever, then you are left to chat on forums.
I have attempted to answer questions here based on my experience with experiments, direct comparisons, and various discussions I have had with turntable designers like David Karmeli and A. J. Conti.
A friend just dropped of the Denon DD table I used in college. He wants to buy a new inexpensive table, so I gave him this for a couple of years. I will set it up next to my AS 2000 in the next few days for a comparison. Cartridges will be the same, but tonearms will be different. I might borrow the outboard armpod I designed and had made and sold so that I can use the same arm and cartridge to compare the two tables. Such comparisons are a fun part of the hobby for me.
Ron, you had written this:
To which I responded:
This post is what you do not understand.
I am curious about your use of the word "we" when you wrote that what your really want to understand is how theories translate into practical things that "we" actually can hear on an A/B basis. I want to hear it for myself to understand it. Your post implies to me that you want others to hear it for themselves confirming it for you. Why else would you write "we" instead of "I"?
I then added that for "we" to make sense, it means we all hear it, which implies some consensus. I do not see many examples of people agreeing on much in this hobby, so little consensus.
I guess it really no longer matters, because you have since written that it is difficult to impossible to isolate theories when listening to reach conclusions anyway, so the exercise is basically futile. I disagree with this, but do not really want this thread to drift even further off course.
Where the 2 cables you were using identical Ron ? Maybe you used your good cable in the single run and a mix of cables for the double run.
Perhaps not all linestages can drive two pair of 47 foot Clear Beyond interconnect cables. Did you contact Trafomatic or whomever to inquire?
Sorry, inquire about what? Buffered dual outputs should be able to drive two separate pairs of long interconnects without diminution in sound quality.
Read your message I quoted about your 'issue' with running dual IC lengths from your linestage.
"Buffered dual outputs should be able to drive two separate pairs of long interconnects without diminution in sound quality." is your theory. But you seem to have evidence it is not true. I asked if you contacted the Traformatic manufacturer about this. Maybe your theory is false for all linestages.
I think this is generally accepted audio engineering practice.
Not anything that would qualify as evidence. I wrote: "In practice I felt like something else was going on. There was some diminution in separation or transparency or something when both preamp outputs were used. This was confusing because this was not supposed to happen. And I might be totally wrong, as I did not do this experiment with an assistant on a blind A/B basis. (emphasis added)
This was not with the Lara.
With the VTL TL-7.5 Series III I felt there might be a hint of edginess when both outputs were used. But this makes no sense because the VTL uses a MOSFET output stage.
Whether preamp is buffered or not, a significant change in the length of an interconnect is audible. Complications may arise if the preamplifier is not of sufficient quality, but no preamp can fully compensate for the increased length of an interconnect—for example, going from 1 meter to 2 meters. Or a huge difference from 1 meter to 5 meters.
You might think shorter is always better, but cable manufacturers design and tune their interconnects with a 1-meter standard in mind. Any significant deviation from this—for instance, extending from 1 meter to 2 meters—is clearly audible. This is why interconnects should not exceed 1.5 meters. If you don’t hear a difference, it’s likely due to either extremely low cable quality or a lack of transparency in your setup. Like it or not, there’s no other explanation. So, cable length is the issue and there is no preamp to cure that. And certainly balanced interconnects are not immune to this situation.
However, if you choose to accept the decrease in sound quality and opt for a 5-meter interconnect instead of 1 meter, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that choice. It’s akin to driving a car from the back seat—it works, but the experience is fundamentally different. The real problem arises if you claim that the sound quality remains unchanged.
Last edited:
Similar threads
