Can We / Should We "Balance" Our Way To Our Desired Sound?

[Jazzhead]

Happy to report , that the Trinity pre has truly come alive . The top end glassiness that was worrying me , has worn off . Listening to Hikary Hahn play the Bach Partita for solo violin , it flushes out a full deep tonal bouquet . Happy to be without a tube at this point , more listening will help ascertain .

 

[Bill Hart]

Strictly speaking dude, I agree with you on 1) and 2). My official formulation of the three objectives is aspirational.

I thank bonzo for explaining 1) and 2) in more realistic, less theoretical terms:

"I think by 1 Ron means our extrapolation of our live show experiences, so that the sound creates as close an illusion as practically possible of the concert halls we have been in.

By 2, there should be no added coloration, e.g. 300b or koetsu flavor. A bad recording should sound bad, a bright one bright, etc."

A sort of business meets street turn of phrase - "trictly speaking, dude...".

back to the bunker for me....

 

[KeithR]

It's all just a preference to me. One man's tone is another's distortion.

That said, Pass's white paper on distortion is quite interesting - some people prefer 2nd order, while others the 3rd. That would make it difficult to proclaim an absolute sound.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ahh but Ron, the "analytical" sound that is usually (but not always) the domain of solid state amplification IS a coloration. It is associated to exaggerated leading edges and a lack of "body" and often truncated decay that makes things seem "fast". This is largely due to high order harmonics that accenuate the leading edges and affect perceived loudness. The truncated decay is from the sounds falling below an artificial, signal modulated, noise floor that is created by electronics using negative feedback. Tubes can also sound this way but it is less common and their colorations are usually (but not always) on the other side of the spectrum as they are largely (but not exclusively) from the output transformer coupling. OTLs with a lot of negative feedback (many of them) are very "fast" and transparent but also they tend to be a bit lean and "analytical". The transparency of a good OTL is very seductive as it is breathtaking the first time one hears it. Later though you start to hear the specific colorations and flaws.

Speakers like Magico, Zellaton etc. are not hyper-fast...electrostats and ribbons are at least as fast in term of actual response time. If they sound "hyper-fast" it is because of the electronics that they are usually paired with in most audition settings. Obviously, lack of cabinet colorations and driver resonances will not hurt the sense of "speed" as there is not the overhang and breakup that one gets in many lesser designs. Having heard now the Magicos many times I didn't find them to be "hyper" resolving or "hyper" fast. The Zellatons did sound that way but I think we were hearing the electronics causing this effect rather than the speaker per se. If these speakers are powered with appropriate amplification then you can get some rather spectacular results (like when the Rockports are driven by Absolare 845 monoblocks). I think good horns and/or electrostats/ribbons are better still but the best box speakers are now very good.

Spectral amps, while not bad for solid state are far from SOTA. They have their own particular coloration (see above) that gives the illlusion of speed but is really a foreshortening of decays and tonal balance is not natural and rather consistent between recordings. This is true of nearly all SS amps. Only those that don't use or use minimal amounts of negative feedback largely avoid this pitfall. Tube amps that use negative feedback also fail in this regard...in addition to other issues related to the output transformers! (most are too small and saturate)

Regardless of what those "trusted" people think, it is a coloration. To be sure there is no accounting for taste and they have chose this coloration over other ones that are available. If one listens to primarily amplified concerts or never goes to concerts I can see how the pursuit of that sound can come about. It can be very impressive...at first. Indeed nearly all of my hifi friends started their journey pursuing that kind of analytical "hyper detailed" sound. Nearly all have diverted towards something much more natural sounding and are more satisfied as a result. All I can say as one who frequents live, unamplified concerts (both at halls and in homes) is that is not the right sound based on what I hear live. It might be high end but it is lacking in beliveability for a number of reasons.

So, while they think it is uncolored, it is not, and while you might defend it as a valid choice, I cannot for the simple reason that what my ears tell me is correct from the real thing, "neutral/analytical" systems (usually the electronics fault in my experience) are further from correct (no system is truly correct) sound.

I agree that electrostats and ribbons are at least as fast in terms of actual response time as dynamic drivers. With "hyper-fast sound" I am attempting to describe a sonic characteristic, what I think is an artifact, that I hear from Tidal, Zellaton and maybe Magico.

You may be correct that what I am hearing might be due to solid-state amplification and not to something inherent in the diamond or otherwise special drivers of such companies' speakers. You are a tube guy so of course you do not care for the typical characteristics of solid-state amplification. I am a tube guy too, so to be fair and balanced I hesitate to characterize the sonics of solid-state as a coloration.

Since I believe the tube sound versus solid-state sound preference is subjective I am not sure that a tube guy characterizing the sonics of solid-state as a coloration advances the discussion. I prefer to leave it as a subjective preference.

Any member who enjoys Magico or Tidal or Zellaton speakers driven by solid-state electronics should feel very free to take this tube guy off the hook right now and take the ball from me and carry it forward on this issue.

 

[KeithR]

One thing I forgot to add, but addressable to the OP is tweaks. They are basically used to "balance" sound oftentimes and I always tell folks to take them all out and see what happens. People even use tweaks to balance out other tweaks.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I agree that electrostats and ribbons are at least as fast in terms of actual response time as dynamic drivers. With "hyper-fast sound" I am attempting to describe a sonic characteristic, what I think is an artifact, that I hear from Tidal, Zellaton and maybe Magico.

You may be correct that what I am hearing might be due to solid state amplification and not something inherent in the diamond or otherwise special drivers of such companies' speakers. You are a tube guy so of course you do not care for the typical characteristics of solid-state amplification. I am tube guy too, so to be fair and balanced I hesitate to characterize the sonics of solid-state as a coloration.

Since I believe the tube sound versus solid-state sound preference is subjective I am not sure that a tube guy characterizing the sonics of solid-state as a coloration advances the discussion. I prefer to leave it as a subjective preference.

Any member who enjoys Magico or Tidal or Zellaton speakers driven by solid-state electronics should feel very free to take this tube guy off the hook right now and take the ball from me and carry it forward on this issue.

Hi Ron,

I think systems with great phase coherency sound faster ime. I first learnt this when I started playing with Acourate drc software and compared the before and after effect. I also believe that room bass issues perceptibly reduce the speed of a system - i.e. sorting out the bass response in room is key to having the speed.

I had a chat with an engineer of a very exclusive brand about this the other day and asked him about rise times and the like, which he promptly dismissed as audiophile marketing. He insisted that phase coherency was the key metric to obtaining the fast sound that we so desire. He also described some crazy methods of using subs in different parts of the room firing at each other to remove standing waves - mind you, he should know being that he fits out bespoke studios and live music venues.

 

[andromedaaudio]

IMO high quality tube sound is probably a more real sound , but SS has its own charms, which one is " better " , i dont know ???

 

[kevinkwann]

IMO high quality tube sound is probably a more real sound

Agreed. But without the word "probably."

 

[bonzo75]

Guys careful Frantz and others are reading this

 

[morricab]

I agree that electrostats and ribbons are at least as fast in terms of actual response time as dynamic drivers. With "hyper-fast sound" I am attempting to describe a sonic characteristic, what I think is an artifact, that I hear from Tidal, Zellaton and maybe Magico.

You may be correct that what I am hearing might be due to solid-state amplification and not to something inherent in the diamond or otherwise special drivers of such companies' speakers. You are a tube guy so of course you do not care for the typical characteristics of solid-state amplification. I am a tube guy too, so to be fair and balanced I hesitate to characterize the sonics of solid-state as a coloration.

Since I believe the tube sound versus solid-state sound preference is subjective I am not sure that a tube guy characterizing the sonics of solid-state as a coloration advances the discussion. I prefer to leave it as a subjective preference.

Any member who enjoys Magico or Tidal or Zellaton speakers driven by solid-state electronics should feel very free to take this tube guy off the hook right now and take the ball from me and carry it forward on this issue.

While I am a tube guy, I will reiterate one point, ALL electronics have colorations...all. I have yet to hear one that was invisible and without defining character. How could it be otherwise when they are running the signal through many non-linear transistors? Negative feedback both gives and it takes away. Most SS amps without feedback would literally sound broken but by "cleaning up" the diatortion it introduces many other problems such as a signal modulated noise floor and an imbalance between low and high order harmonic patterns. The human brain wants to hear the right pattern and the absence of high order harmonics.

SS and tube amps with feedback violate this and therefore make sn audibly discernible pattern. Tube amps often saturate at low frequencies and this makes a different kind of discernible pattern.

At the extremes the former is sharp with lots of leading edge exaggeration and becomes quickly fatiguing and the later is somewhat warm, bloated and somewhat lacking in transparency.

In between, some SS seems to try to copy the worst aspects of tube sound and some tube amps get the worst of SS.

i know of one hybrid that really combines best of both and that is from KR Audio. Their amps show that at least for small signals SET FETs can be world class. Maybe the Robert Koda can also work magic as a SET hybrid of a more conventional format.

Ypsilon also seems to have mastered the hybrid design.

I had the NAT Symbiosis SE, which was a most interesting and massive SE hybrid. It took a full two hours to warm up and then it was almost psychedelic good but until then it was merely ok. Still I would say so far the only hybrids I have heard that were really synergistic were SE hybrids, with possible exception of Ypsilon.

 

[morricab]

Hi Ron,

I think systems with great phase coherency sound faster ime. I first learnt this when I started playing with Acourate drc software and compared the before and after effect. I also believe that room bass issues perceptibly reduce the speed of a system - i.e. sorting out the bass response in room is key to having the speed.

I had a chat with an engineer of a very exclusive brand about this the other day and asked him about rise times and the like, which he promptly dismissed as audiophile marketing. He insisted that phase coherency was the key metric to obtaining the fast sound that we so desire. He also described some crazy methods of using subs in different parts of the room firing at each other to remove standing waves - mind you, he should know being that he fits out bespoke studios and live music venues.

I don't know that they sound faster but they definitely on the whole sound more correct and more coherent. I would say that beyond phase actual time coherence is a vital component to a believable sounding speaker.

 

[bonzo75]

The NAT symbiosis is the lower end of NAT, something he did not invest in. His other amps warm up more quickly. Also, his valves lack nothing on impedance control.

I love the ypsilon tone and soundstage, and their pre, but whenever I have heard the aelius on the soundlab ultimates and the vivid giya g1, they seemed to struggle on the bass. I would pick up a hybrid only to drive a tough to drive speaker, not otherwise. I ABed the aelius with the Luxman m800 bridged on the vivids at Joel's, and I preferred the Luxman while he marginally prefers the ypsilon.

 

[Lee]

IMO high quality tube sound is probably a more real sound , but SS has its own charms, which one is " better " , i dont know ???

I know...it's tubes.

 

[es347]

Nearly every live event we've attended was played thru a mixing board, amps and huge speakers of questionable accuracy not to mention the questionable acoustics of the venue. Thoroughly enjoyable to be sure but not a sound that I wish to recreate in my listening room. I can't tell you how many times I've come home and played the same tracks on my system and been equally entertained in some cases even more so. Now I suppose if I had a steady diet of live chamber music in a good venue acoustically I'd have a different take on it but I don't...so I don't..

 

[Diapason]

Interesting thread, thanks for starting it Ron.

I'm at the very lower echelons of this hobby in terms of spending power, and opportunities to change components are rare enough that maybe I'm not representative, but over time I'm moving away from the idea of neutral components in combination and coming down on the side of balancing attributes to my ears' desires. However, that's mainly because I no longer have any useful reference for what neutral really means in a subjective sense.

For a long time I favoured "neutral" equipment, or at the very least, equipment that was considered to be "neutral" in audiophile circles and that on initial listening my brain also considered as such. Over time my enjoyment diminished, and I realised that somewhere along the line I had translated "neutral" to "hairshirt". Neutral to me at that time meant no bloom, no sonic fattening, just lean n' clean all the way. This was fine with pristine recordings, but became intolerable with standard-issue fare, so I was listening to less and less music. Is this really just another kind of colouration? Honestly, I have no idea, but I realise now that I can't separate truly "neutral" from "subjectively better" in any meaningful way. If there's something in the way of my enjoyment, the equipment isn't neutral to my ear.

I was struck at a recent dem where we compared (in the same room but with different ancillaries) Magico S5s with Sonus Faber Amati Futuras. Popular press has it that Magico is more neutral, Sonus Faber more coloured, but to my ear the Sonus Faber speakers sounded more like music across the board. So what does neutral mean here in the subjective sense? To put this in Ron's language, I'm probably trying to tick boxes 1 and 3 (as they're nearly synonymous to me) but I have no idea which speakers came closer to ticking box number 2. As a listener, how would I even know?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Fwiw, I'm kind of looking to balance attributes, and there's no doubt my starting point two decades ago is probably very different from where I am today.
Actually today, my gear has been in 3 month storage , w/another three months no go, ahead of my new room ready to set up in.
My first system(all Roksan) was overly analytical and dry, that certainly was what I "thought" was needed in my first high end system. Boy was I wrong, within 6 months I realised I needed to go another way, and then went too warm/fuzzy.
A handful of upgrades all 'round later, and I've moved to a very accurate tt (rim drive/linear tracking), a highly musical, most analog- like cdp, SETs which give me the unique tonality of tubes w/the real speed and impact of SS, and full range spkrs which major on tonal saturation.
These components all were chosen in reaction to some extent against what was there before, but now I'm finding I'm not compelled to react against these to anywhere near the same extent.

 

[DaveC]

For folks thinking this is all subjective, you need to look up definitions of these words, as it's trivially easy these days to buy measuring equipment and measure the objective performance of a system in many different ways.

Also we may be in disagreement with the definition of neutral, neutral doesn't mean cold, lean and annoying, that's just the opposite of warm and fat. Neutral means the system doesn't have any of these attributes, it's not warm and fat, it's not cold and annoying with accentuated leading edges.

And neutral IS NOT subjective, any more than resolution of a system is subjective. You either hear the fine details or you don't there is absolutely nothing subjective about that.

I'd suggest that people who think neutral is some nebulous subjective concept simply don't have the experience to know differently. While it may not be defined in a concrete objective way it's also not really subjective at all. Warmth is warmth no matter who you are, lean and cold is lean and cold, and these things have to do with the entirely objective presence or absence of certain kinds of distortion, much of which is easily measurable. Just because you don't have the experience to correlate the sound characteristics with a measured parameter DOES NOT all of a sudden make it subjective, it just means you don't understand why and how there are actually objective measurements that can define these things, and you don't have enough experience listening for them and comparing gear.

 

[DaveC]

I would say that beyond phase actual time coherence is a vital component to a believable sounding speaker.

Within certain frequencies, yes... outside that range you won't hear a difference. Also, phase and time are the same thing.

 

[thedudeabides]

And neutral IS NOT subjective, any more than resolution of a system is subjective. You either hear the fine details or you don't there is absolutely nothing subjective about that.

Respectfully disagree. Depends on the acuity of your hearing and what you listen "for" when determining the "resolution" of a system. In addition, everyone has there own unique "cues / biases" that influence our personal, subjective judgement of neutrality and resolution.

Another iteration. No two classical concert venues sound alike and when you consider the fact that what you hear is highly dependent on where you are sitting, then all bets are off for determining neutrality and resolution.

Best.

 

[DaveC]

Respectfully disagree. Depends on the acuity of your hearing and what you listen "for" when determining the "resolution" of a system. In addition, everyone has there own unique "cues / biases" that influence our personal, subjective judgement of neutrality and resolution.

Another iteration. No two classical concert venues sound alike and when you consider the fact that what you hear is highly dependent on where you are sitting, then all bets are off for determining neutrality and resolution.

Best.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, because in my world the presence or absence of detail is very much objective. The further you get from neutral the more the details are masked. It's really as simple as that.