Epiphany, have you had one in audio?

[FrantzM]

Mike

I don't think I am we are in disagreement ... You are not the average audiophile. You may clam to be the absolute subjectivist but the fundamentals of your system are too well covered to hide

Electrical Power is optimized (Not that I believe in Oyaide Cryo outlets and the likes ) but you have clean power, EFI and RMI from powerlines items are minimized.
Room Acoustics and Acoustic Isolation is also addressed, fanatically. You have spent considerable time and energy for that to happen and it took many years.. So your room deleterious effect are as non-existent as one can find out ...
Components Acoustic (vibration) Isolation is systematically addressed also ...
Your equipment is,again, top notch


You have thus created an environment where your system performs at its glorious, elevated best. Headphones on the subject of impact and immersion can't compete and it is likely you may not find satisfaction with "cans"...
It remains however that Headphones, even some inexpensive models, have lower distortion, purity and more defintion than the best speakers... However worthwhile, these characteristics may be, it is possible that these may not make for a entirely satisfying compared to a system such as yours ... For those who needs to get there or those who can't just yet .. headphones remains the reference and even in your case may point you toward area of improvements..

 

[c1ferrari]

Realism again? Whatever that means? Google mastering studios and look at their equipment lists. You'll find very few that look like anybody's high-end audiophile system. Find the few that do. Narrow it to the systems, if any, that use the speakers you own. Tweak your room like...well, let's hope there isn't more than one of them. Now, buy recordings mastered in that room, you've got something approaching relative "realism."

...you've got to accept that what were seeking is varieties of an illusion. Then you can accept the strengths and weaknesses of the various illusions for what they are, and enjoy them without chasing some "realism" that only existed in the mastering suite. Seek accuracy, if that's your thing, tone if that's your thing. But spatial realism? You can only imagine it.

Tim

Dear Tim,

Incisive and vivid depiction...thank you That's why I am so motivated to record acoustic music --in analog, initially-- in vivo...a natural environment, if you will, rather than in vitro --an artificial one.

Only then, would I have the facility to better characterize my own system, room inclusive, and develop my personal preferences.

Happy Memorial Day

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

It seems you are not understanding what realism means for some audiophiles ... Realism doe not mean having a facsimile of the control room, but having the capability to recreate the perception of the original event.

"Descriptions like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered in ranking in importance as ranking with accuracy and fidelity. " Do you know who wrote it?

No, I understand, I just firmly disagree. This is old ground, long-covered so I'll try to be brief: The original event is the recording. That could be something that happened in a studio, or it could be what the microphones heard, placed all over the stage, in close proximity to sections of, if not individual instruments, at a live event. Unless you find the rare professional recording that was created with a single stereo pair of mics from a seat in the house and you can tell me you have sat in that seat and listened to that music for reference, then what you are creating is not your perception of the original event, but your imagination of a fictional original event that does not exist on the recording you're playing. Enjoy what you hear. Prefer it to a more accurate reproduction of the recording (a "facsimile of the control room"). But your perception of the original event is an illusion. It is not more "natural," or more "realistic," or more anything other than pleasing to you. It is some combination of imagination and construct. If you love it, fine. But as a "perception of the event" it is no more original than that program in your AV receiver labeled "Jazz Club," though I expect it sounds a lot better.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mike

I don't think I am we are in disagreement ... You are not the average audiophile. You may clam to be the absolute subjectivist but the fundamentals of your system are too well covered to hide

Electrical Power is optimized (Not that I believe in Oyaide Cryo outlets and the likes ) but you have clean power, EFI and RMI from powerlines items are minimized.
Room Acoustics and Acoustic Isolation is also addressed, fanatically. You have spent considerable time and energy for that to happen and it took many years.. So your room deleterious effect are as non-existent as one can find out ...
Components Acoustic (vibration) Isolation is systematically addressed also ...
Your equipment is,again, top notch


You have thus created an environment where your system performs at its glorious, elevated best. Headphones on the subject of impact and immersion can't compete and it is likely you may not find satisfaction with "cans"...
It remains however that Headphones have lower distortion, purity and more purity than the best speakers... However worthwhile, these characteristics may be , they likely would not make for a entirely satisfying compared to a system such as yours ... For those who needs to get there or those who can't just yet .. headphones remains the reference and even in your case may point you toward area of improvements..

I tend to agree with Frantz on this one, Mke. And frankly, I doubt you'll find much with bigger/better headphone amps. It doesn't take much for headphones, with no crossovers to get in the way, to be swimming in a deep pool of luxurious headroom, delivering a kind of clarity that is really, really difficult to achieve in speaker systems. Even great speaker systems. I think you may have achieved your sonic nirvana and it may be time to sign off the boards, stop thinking about equipment and spend the rest of your days listening to music. Congratulations.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

No, I understand, I just firmly disagree. This is old ground, long-covered so I'll try to be brief: The original event is the recording. That could be something that happened in a studio, or it could be what the microphones heard, placed all over the stage, in close proximity to sections of, if not individual instruments, at a live event. Unless you find the rare professional recording that was created with a single stereo pair of mics from a seat in the house and you can tell me you have sat in that seat and listened to that music for reference, then what you are creating is not your perception of the original event, but your imagination of a fictional original event that does not exist on the recording you're playing. Enjoy what you hear. Prefer it to a more accurate reproduction of the recording (a "facsimile of the control room"). But your perception of the original event is an illusion. It is not more "natural," or more "realistic," or more anything other than pleasing to you. It is some combination of imagination and construct. If you love it, fine. But as a "perception of the event" it is no more original than that program in your AV receiver labeled "Jazz Club," though I expect it sounds a lot better.

Tim

The sentence "Descriptions like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered in ranking in importance as ranking with accuracy and fidelity. " was taken from F.Toole "Sound Reproduction" book. He then explains why such risky sentence is possible - the perceptual report that humans establish with the reality makes them good judges to evaluate (under the proper unbiased conditions) what is good or not good. Our natural preferences go towards good sound reproduction.

IMHO your conservative vision of audio is limiting some of the great possibilities of modern equipment. But some audiophiles like you have preferences and I accept them. But if an whole industry of experts and knowledge people exists to create this fantastic (and illusionary) world why not take part in it? The high-end is just an way of participating in this challenge to establish a perceptual and emotional connection with music or even sound.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The sentence "Descriptions like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered in ranking in importance as ranking with accuracy and fidelity. " was taken from F.Toole "Sound Reproduction" book. He then explains why such risky sentence is possible - the perceptual report that humans establish with the reality makes them good judges to evaluate (under the proper unbiased conditions) what is good or not good. Our natural preferences go towards good sound reproduction.

IMHO your conservative vision of audio is limiting some of the great possibilities of modern equipment. But some audiophiles like you have preferences and I accept them. But if an whole industry of experts and knowledge people exists to create this fantastic (and illusionary) world why not take part in it? The high-end is just an way of participating in this challenge to establish a perceptual and emotional connection with music or even sound.

I don't think we really disagree on the fundamentals, micro. I absolutely agree with the importance of pleasantness and preference, and I prefer what I find to be pleasant. Our preferences may even be much closer than we suspect, but our analysis is radically different. I no longer have the need to believe that what I prefer is somehow closer to some imagined original event than that which I do not prefer. The "original event" is the recording; it is all illusion. I accept that, make my choices and enjoy them for what they are.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I tend to agree with Frantz on this one, Mke. And frankly, I doubt you'll find much with bigger/better headphone amps. It doesn't take much for headphones, with no crossovers to get in the way, to be swimming in a deep pool of luxurious headroom, delivering a kind of clarity that is really, really difficult to achieve in speaker systems. Even great speaker systems. I think you may have achieved your sonic nirvana and it may be time to sign off the boards, stop thinking about equipment and spend the rest of your days listening to music. Congratulations.

Tim

Tim and Frantz,

thanks for the nice comments....and i have sort of folded my tent in terms of system contemplation and stressing about 'what's next?'. i'm where i always wanted to be, and for about 6-7 months now i have not thought about changes.....in fact, i'm culling the herd of tt's, arms and cartridges. the Rockport and Olympos cartridge are now sold and 'gone'. i'll end up with one turntable and 2 arms (one for stereo, one for mono). i just don't need more than that. i've even slowed down buying Lps and pretty much am only pursuing RTR master dubs that excite me. i'm now in my experiential period, no longer in my developmental stage. my posting has slowed down quite a bit as i'm not doing new things, just listening and enjoying.

which, in some ways, is why i'm investigating headphones, just to satisfy myself that there is not another reference out there for music reproduction that is worth even thinking about. it seems not.

i do have those 2A3 tube, mercury vapor tube recitified, monoblock amps that a friend of mine is building which did tickle my fancy in terms of a different view on the music. i have always wanted to have a set of tube amps worthy of my system sitting there to choose 'ying' every once in a while.

i hope i don't sound too smug, i'm not sure how else to relate where i see myself right now.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim and Frantz,

thanks for the nice comments....and i have sort of folded my tent in terms of system contemplation and stressing about 'what's next?'. i'm where i always wanted to be, and for about 6-7 months now i have not thought about changes.....in fact, i'm culling the herd of tt's, arms and cartridges. the Rockport and Olympos cartridge are now sold and 'gone'. i'll end up with one turntable and 2 arms. i just don't need more than that. i've even slowed down buying Lps and pretty much am only pursuing RTR master dubs that excite me. i'm now in my experiential period, no longer in my developmental stage. my posting has slowed down quite a bit as i'm not doing new things, just listening and enjoying.

which, in some ways, is why i'm investigating headphones, just to satisfy myself that there is not another reference out there for music reproduction that is worth even thinking about. it seems not.

i do have those 2A3 tube, mercury vapor tube recitified, monoblock amps that a friend of mine is building which did tickle my fancy in terms of a different view on the music. i have always wanted to have a set of tube amps worthy of my system sitting there to choose 'ying' every once in a while.

i hope i don't sound too smug, i'm not sure how else to relate where i see myself right now.

You don't sound smug at all, Mike, you sound at rest. I'm pretty much there myself, on a much smaller scale. I could add a sub if I could find the right one for my small room, but for most of the music I listen to it wouldn't add much, so I'm in no hurry. And I completely accept that my system is nowhere near the ultimate. I have accepted the compromises, sought a particular path, and am satisfied that I can't improve it much, just scale it up. I post so much not because I'm searching for new gear, but because I enjoy the community and love to write, and I find myself with fewer opportunities to do so. Ya'll are keeping my typing fingers sharp.

Tim

 

[mep]

Mike-Is "The Beat" the TT you are keeping? That must be one special table if you sold your Rockport.

Mark

 

[jazdoc]

You don't sound smug at all, Mike, you sound at rest. I'm pretty much there myself, on a much smaller scale. I could add a sub if I could find the right one for my small room, but for most of the music I listen to it wouldn't add much, so I'm in no hurry. And I completely accept that my system is nowhere near the ultimate. I have accepted the compromises, sought a particular path, and am satisfied that I can't improve it much, just scale it up. I post so much not because I'm searching for new gear, but because I enjoy the community and love to write, and I find myself with fewer opportunities to do so. Ya'll are keeping my typing fingers sharp.

Tim

Tim, you and Mike have eloquently summarized what I was trying express above!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike-Is "The Beat" the TT you are keeping? That must be one special table if you sold your Rockport.

Mark

i love 'The Beat', it's a great tt......and special. and it would be fine if that was it. the Dobbins plinth'd Garrard 301 with Loricraft UPS 301 power supply will be sold. i love the Garrard and it's view of the music but find myself choosing 'The Beat' mostly and so that's how i will go. it's simply too much money tied up for the amount of use it gets.

basically i've spent 4 to 5 years with three tt's, and 5 arms and discovered what was important. it was fun and i learned alot.

 

[cjfrbw]

I have spent some time exploring headphones for a different reason. My wife and I spend time at a second place that doesn't allow the massive attack main system.

Exciting a thimble full of air at the ear canal, however subtle, is not the same as exciting cubic yards of air in a room. Headphones are a "separate but unequal" experience that can nonetheless be very compelling if one is willing to accept headphones on their own terms.

It is also a lot cheaper to buy a ton of headphone s**t compared to full scale stereo systems.

After spending the requisite "rock pile" exploration of the blogosphere and the massive, puzzling and divergent opinions on head-fi and elsewhere, I settled on one dynamic headphone set and a couple of electrostatic headphones.

I have an Ultrasone Edition 8 that took FOREVER to break in, but sounds hypnotically lovely now. It offers a valid audiophile experience from an ipod all the way up to a Manley 300b preamp.

To resolve the electrostatic itch, I bought a traditional normal bias Stax Lambda with Stax transformer unit to attach the Lambda to a conventional speaker amplifier.

I also bought a Stax SR 3 that had its drivers replaced with SR 5n drivers in 1986, also with a Stax transformer for $92 delivered.

I was going to go full bore with a Stax 007 and a Blue Hawaii amp, but after reading all of the usual fine parsing of distinctions being made on head-fi, the status groupie stuff and the final claims that to get the final best result you have to get a beast of an expensive headphone amp, but some things were still not JUST RIGHT, I realized it was all the same old same old, nobody is ever satisfied and there is no holy grail truly in sight, just controversy and one-upmanship.

The Stax SR3/5n is the cheapest of the phones I bought, has amazing old school build with metal, gold, and bakelite construction and a rugged, appliance cord cable, and sounds just amazing with an extraordinary fast, detailed and clear delivery. The bass is somewhat recessed, but is so fast and
tight, that listening to a drum kit is a revalation with every small shudder audible.

Respectively, the Edition 8 cost $1100, the Stax Lambda $350 with transformer in very good condition, and the SR3/5n and transformer for $92, and I can't say that the SR3/5n is inferior to the other two, and does many things better.

I am actually happy with these as far as headphones go, I don't see much reason to go further unless I heard something at a meet that really bumped things up.

 

[tony ky ma]

Tim and Frantz,

thanks for the nice comments....and i have sort of folded my tent in terms of system contemplation and stressing about 'what's next?'. i'm where i always wanted to be, and for about 6-7 months now i have not thought about changes.....in fact, i'm culling the herd of tt's, arms and cartridges. the Rockport and Olympos cartridge are now sold and 'gone'. i'll end up with one turntable and 2 arms (one for stereo, one for mono). i just don't need more than that. i've even slowed down buying Lps and pretty much am only pursuing RTR master dubs that excite me. i'm now in my experiential period, no longer in my developmental stage. my posting has slowed down quite a bit as i'm not doing new things, just listening and enjoying.

which, in some ways, is why i'm investigating headphones, just to satisfy myself that there is not another reference out there for music reproduction that is worth even thinking about. it seems not.

i do have those 2A3 tube, mercury vapor tube recitified, monoblock amps that a friend of mine is building which did tickle my fancy in terms of a different view on the music. i have always wanted to have a set of tube amps worthy of my system sitting there to choose 'ying' every once in a while.

i hope i don't sound too smug, i'm not sure how else to relate where i see myself right now.

Hi Mike
You just stepped in to direct heating tube SE's world by 2A3 and 866A, ask your friend to build one more for you with 838 or 805 in positive bias drive by 300B with all silver wound transformers, you will have the best taste of SET's sound
tony ma

 

[audioguy]

A great set of headphones (or even "good" set ) will demonstrate quickly how even the very best room plays a key (negative) role in what you hear versus what the source contains. Humbling actually.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Headphones are a "separate but unequal" experience that can nonetheless be very compelling if one is willing to accept headphones on their own terms.

Being the headphone lover that I am, I'd agree with this. Even if you have a system over-scaled to your space and your space very well controlled, as Mike does, as all well-designed/equipped studios do, headphones are capable of delivering a bit more detail. The evidence is that even in very expensive studios with great near field monitors and mains, and the best room treatment, engineers still reach for the cans to "listen in."

But it's not detail that matters much to the music, it's detail that matters to the engineer. A system that is a good match to a well-tuned room delivers all the detail you need and adds the imaging and the bass that headphones cannot. This is, in fact, what I was going for when I put together my current system. After a few years of headspace immersion, I wanted to take all that intimacy and fine detail, that view into the recording, and hang it in space in front of me. It's probably why I'm such a freak for pinpoint imaging. It is the most obvious advantage I gained from my system.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

A great set of headphones (or even "good" set ) will demonstrate quickly how even the very best room plays a key (negative) role in what you hear versus what the source contains. Humbling actually.

i have a couple of what would be described as 'great set of headphones and amps', Stax O2 Mk1/SRM-717 and Sennheiser HD-800/Woo Audio 6SE Maxxed. neither demonstrate what you refer to, and that is any negative effect of my room. it's the headphones which are humbled.

forget about the obvious lack of proper imaging and bass.......the problem with headphones is that they don't allow music to decay naturally, they are literally closed in. the best rooms allow for notes to fully decay in real space. so, realism of reproduction with headphones is lacking. my room has lots of hard surface diffusion and almost no absorbtion, even the floor is hardwood, so decay is allowed to happen un-impeded. no detail is discarded and no energy is wasted. the microdynamic life advantage of headphones is not evidant.

also, assuming a sufficently fast and uncolored tweeter, such as the ribbons in my Evolution Acoustics MM3's, even the Stax's have no advantage in low level detail since my room has as low a noise floor as my headphones. normally this is the area where headphones have significant advantages.

i sit near-field, on the point of an equalateral triangle with my ears about 10 feet from my speakers......this is also an issue of level of detail which equals or betters headphones. far-field listeners lose an element of detail even in ideal situations. in my room i have a sofa behind my 'sweet spot' which some listeners prefer, but there is less detail there.

 

[microstrip]

Being the headphone lover that I am, I'd agree with this. Even if you have a system over-scaled to your space and your space very well controlled, as Mike does, as all well-designed/equipped studios do, headphones are capable of delivering a bit more detail. The evidence is that even in very expensive studios with great near field monitors and mains, and the best room treatment, engineers still reach for the cans to "listen in."

Surely. We should not forget the filter effect. Most headphones used in studios modify or even suppress some zones of the frequency spectrum and the spatial information. This way it makes easier to concentrate in mid-range and treble detail, as a lot is missing! Or should we find any other reason for their capability of delivering a bit more detail?

 

[audioguy]

Mike:

I have seen photos of your room and it is beautiful. And I'm sure it is sonically excellent as well. But I would also suspect it is not soncially PERFECT.

Headphones, with all of their many shortcomings, many that you noted, still have the ability to demonstrate the problems of every room if that is what you are listening for.

Not since the 1960's have I used headphone for serious listening but I do use them as an invaluable tool for improving my room.

 

[microstrip]

A great set of headphones (or even "good" set ) will demonstrate quickly how even the very best room plays a key (negative) role in what you hear versus what the source contains. Humbling actually.

Negative? Still recovering from a poor past experience?

 

[DaveyF]

Mike:

I have seen photos of your room and it is beautiful. And I'm sure it is sonically excellent as well. But I would also suspect it is not soncially PERFECT.

Headphones, with all of their many shortcomings, many that you noted, still have the ability to demonstrate the problems of every room if that is what you are listening for.

Not since the 1960's have I used headphone for serious listening but I do use them as an invaluable tool for improving my room.

Audioguy, why is it that you do NOT use 'phones for serious listening
I am with Mike, I agree that 'phones are IMHO, very much less capable of reproducing the
'gestalt' ( yes I know that term has been used many times before in the dreaded mags)
of music BUT in this instance, I think the term sums up what's missing in 'phones.
I use 'phones when i am in a studio listening to a cut, however, I only use them as they are able to 'drown out' what's around me and they allow me not to have to impede on other players. If I want to hear what the whole group is doing, then we rarely use 'phones