Does it matter? I'm asking because I'm curious, I'm not challenging just looking to learn more. On my system, the newer DG recordings have a big soundstage and excellent space between instruments. Very similar to the sound of my prefered classics venue, Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles.
Live music, Tone and Presence: What most systems get wrong
- Thread starter morricab
- Start date
Does it matter? I'm asking because I'm curious, I'm not challenging just looking to learn more. On my system, the newer DG recordings have a big soundstage and excellent space between instruments. Very similar to the sound of my prefered classics venue, Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles.
AND before people jump on me....I said similar to the Disney Hall. The day my system sounds exactly like this Frank Gehry designed hall will alas never come.
Ah yes. Love that one too.
That was a mess prior to recent system progress. It demands everything and especially low noise and nuance.
No offense but I have significantly more experience with Apogees and "toy" horns than you and how to drive them. Come by when you want, I don't think you will find anything toy about the sound.
I have heard the best from Apogee and well I will keep my horns. Don't get me wrong, I like the sound very much with great amps on them but not enough to make space for them again.
What others did going from this to that is really of no concern. There are just as many stories going the other way (at least in my circles most went away from SS) .
I have one NAT product now, The Plasma preamp. I sold the Symbiosis because it was not getting microdynamics well enough and limiting the realism. Same reason I sold the Wall monos. Lack of inner resolution compared to the best. The Plasma is really a good pre though. Point is that NAT is a bit hit and miss. They try things and innovate but not all is a hit.
Don't get me wrong, I like DG recordings and they always had great artists. Beethoven Sonatas played with Wilhelm Kempff sound great as do Chopin Etudes and Preludes played by Maurizio Pollini.
We disagree. From whatever I can calibrate your tastes are for your system, in your small room, and for chamber music at low volumes.
I am not interested in arguing, you like what you like and hear what you hear. But we hear great tone and microdynamics and everything else from well set-up top solid state. You may find yourself in the minority with your comments.
Very nice post Morricab! You have cited the exact reasons why I have stuck to my Tannoys. Regarding amplification too, after trying all varieties (and with Tannoys all varieties of amps sounds good) it is only the SETs that sound the most real, most present, most dynamic and with most muscially correct timing. I attribute this to the basic fact that in an SET/SEP design there is no splitting of signals which maintains the signal integrity to the maximum. The slightly fuzzy, distant and restrained picture we get from push-pull and SS devices is a result of the distortion of the signal when it was split (at input) and when it was re-created (at output). Now, my only curiosity is when the master LP is cut, do they use a Single ended amp or a Push-pull amp for the cutter head ?
Oh boy. There doesn't seem to be any point in arguing with some SET true believers.
As for signal integrity vs. alleged distortion by push-pull set-ups, the large distortion figures of SET configurations do not really allow for making a strong point here.
I am not claiming that SET amps cannot sound great -- they can -- but to dismiss anything else goes a bit too far and will not convince anyone who is not already firmly in the SET camp.
In my entire life I have owned only 1 SET amp in my system and all other amps were push-pull (SS or tube). I have owned some very good amps in general. So I am not a fanboy of SET
. But there is no denying that there is a clear demarcation of how SETs or should I say Single-Ended amps construct and project sound versus all the other topology of amps. I dont know the exact explanation of why it happens. I just guess that it is due to the splitting and re-creation of signal where something is happening at the boundaries which is making the audible difference. I cannot prove it, only by observation and inference I said it.Perhaps an even more fundamental question would be if single-ended microphone tube preamps were used for the recording. I would be greatly surprised if a majority, or even just a significant portion, of professional microphone preamps are single-ended tube.
It is not about "Single Ended Tube", it is "Single Ended" either tube or solid state. As far as I know microphone signals are Single ended.
In my entire life I have owned only 1 SET amp in my system and all other amps were push-pull (SS or tube). I have owned some very good amps in general. So I am not a fanboy of SET
As for distant pictures, I would caution against arguing that direct sonic images are automatically better. My push-pull triode amps can sound very direct, but they can also project rather distant sound images when the spatial information in the recording demands it. Before I had external power supplies, which greatly helped in the reduction of electronic noise, the amps on average sounded more direct. But that is because electronic noise was suppressing the low-level spatial information in recordings.
In that case the earlier more direct sound was clearly due to distortion, in the form of suppression of recorded information. Not particularly a virtue.
Microphone preamps are not necessarily single-ended, see for example:
http://www.lachapellaudio.com/products/1_992TubePre.html
From the link: "The 992EG’s output stage features a cross-coupled push-pull topology which includes two 12AU7 tubes in parallel with the Jensen JT-11BM line output transformer to balance the outputs."
Yea, I just meant that Microphone outputs are single ended. The microphone amp could be single-ended or differential. I would assume that older recordings used simple single ended micrphone amps, probably some recording guy can confirm this.
I understand what you mean. In case of SETs the direct sound is not because it lacks depth. The relative space between instruments and the layering is very well communicated, in fact it is also communicated in a much more explicit (direct) way. The sound of SETs is like "they being here" while push-pull is "you being there" IMO.
Morricab, that is a wonderfully written OP. You really describe well the sound and experience of listening to those two cellists up close in an intimate setting. It would be great to see a photo, if you happened to take one. I like the descriptions of how visceral it was, and the tonal density and sense of presence. The sound and music, filling the room. This is what live music in such a setting is all about. I marvel at the sheer vibrational energy resonating out of a cello. I, too, have never heard a system do that. However, I have heard a very small number of systems come pretty close to reproducing the tone, presence and energy of a cello, at least enough to be convincing and believable. Two were cones driven by SS. One particularly poor system was a pair of Altec horns driven by SETs. We all have different examples.
I was excited to read your opening post and had hoped this thread would encourage a discussion about "Live music, Tone and Presence." What are they and why are so many systems disappointing? We hear these things when listening to live acoustic music and we have heard some systems succeed and many fail at portraying these characteristics. There have been many posts in this fascinating thread in just one day, but sadly, they are mostly about the old topic of SS versus tube, or SET versus push-pull, or horns versus cones. Is this how you would like your thread to develop? I don't have a lot of experience listening to many different systems or component typologies, but I can say that I have heard tube, SS, cone and horn based systems convincingly portray "tone, presence, and dynamics", to quote Jim Smith's triumvirate.
I agree that many systems get these wrong, but I no longer think it is about typology. I think it is more about the quality of the design, and how the system and room are assembled and set up. I have learned to be increasingly open minded about what kind of components or system can produce a convincingly musical experience. Hearing those cellos as you did, gives you a good basis on which to judge a system's success. Thank you for sharing that listening experience with us.
I was excited to read your opening post and had hoped this thread would encourage a discussion about "Live music, Tone and Presence." What are they and why are so many systems disappointing? We hear these things when listening to live acoustic music and we have heard some systems succeed and many fail at portraying these characteristics. There have been many posts in this fascinating thread in just one day, but sadly, they are mostly about the old topic of SS versus tube, or SET versus push-pull, or horns versus cones. Is this how you would like your thread to develop? I don't have a lot of experience listening to many different systems or component typologies, but I can say that I have heard tube, SS, cone and horn based systems convincingly portray "tone, presence, and dynamics", to quote Jim Smith's triumvirate.
I agree that many systems get these wrong, but I no longer think it is about typology. I think it is more about the quality of the design, and how the system and room are assembled and set up. I have learned to be increasingly open minded about what kind of components or system can produce a convincingly musical experience. Hearing those cellos as you did, gives you a good basis on which to judge a system's success. Thank you for sharing that listening experience with us.
Similar threads
