Member Signatures

[microstrip]

Some members assume they know how a system sounds without having heard it, and they comment on that basis. Others members do not make such assumptions. Same with gear. Some people only go on threads about gear they have heard or threads about general audio topics. Other people go on threads just to stir things up. Just different approaches, I guess. Some people like to argue, others not so much.

Good summary, Peter. I only assume good things about how other people systems sound, but like to spend a good time debating general stereo topics. IMHO your changes and experiences would be a great subject of debate if they were not reduced to the "natural/artificial" dichotomy. Particularly as they confront the Hyperbole Police - they suggest that minimal technical changes can have enormous effects in our subjective listening pleasure.

 

[PeterA]

Good summary, Peter. I only assume good things about how other people systems sound, but like to spend a good time debating general stereo topics. IMHO your changes and experiences would be a great subject of debate if they were not reduced to the "natural/artificial" dichotomy. Particularly as they confront the Hyperbole Police - they suggest that minimal technical changes can have enormous effects in our subjective listening pleasure.

Yes, thank you Francisco. Here’s the problem as I see it and a way to wrap up this whole discussion about signatures and debate about natural versus artificial sound.

I made my changes after long discussions with DDK about how to achieve a more natural sound. Without changing gear, excepting the new preamp speaker cables and vdH cartridges, what I actually hear is a more natural sound. And I described it as such.

Then someone reads my signature with the big solid-state amplifiers and the Magico speakers and joins the discussion to say that I cannot have natural sound because those components cannot provide it. The support is from all the systems he’s heard at shows and other examples of specific Magico speakers in other systems which do not sound natural to him. Where do we go from there?

So to avoid the argument that goes nowhere, I start to think about how set up rather than components are responsible for the more natural sound that I am hearing in my system.

The pleasant irony for me is that DDK told me that my electronics and speakers are not what is preventing my system from sounding natural, and my subsequent experience demonstrates this to me. As far as components are concerned, he actually thinks it is my SME turntable that is holding the system back.

We do what we do within our abilities and willingness to spend money for a change. David, who has never heard my system, based on photographs alone, encouraged me to follow a path without changing components that would lead me further down the path of natural sound. He recently did the same for Steve Williams.

This has been discussed in my system thread. We can choose to simplify the discussion with reference to a natural versus artificial axis or we can discuss the actual changes I made and what they might sound like.

The interesting thing is how strong particular opinions are based simply on reading words in a component list in someone’s signature. Three of the six or seven people who have heard my system recently have commented publicly on the forum. One thinks the sound is terrible and the other two seem to like it. Those comments are more valuable to me than anything someone writes based on speculation because he has actually never heard the system.

Notice that DDK has not commented on the sound of my system publicly because he has not heard it. Some follow this example and others are more presumptive.

 

[Steve williams]

You must remember that Davids mantra is “ above all else it must sound natural“

 

[microstrip]

You must remember that Davids mantra is “ above all else it must sound natural“

Yes, but some of us long before we listened from David have been reading about "sound natural" in magazines such as TAS, RdS, L'Audiophile and Stereophile. I think I know what David means with it - I built a system with all his approved ingredients - but it is not my current preference. Could I happily listen to it? Surely, but I prefer other approaches.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The pleasant irony for me is that DDK told me that my electronics and speakers are not what is preventing my system from sounding natural, and my subsequent experience demonstrates this to me. As far as components are concerned, he actually thinks it is my SME turntable that is holding the system back. (...)

It has also been my feeling. I know the SME30 pretty well and it is a coherent package, but no way the type of sound of the EMT927 or the Garrard 401. I can't understand how simply using components in an "out of tune status" helps making a system sound natural, although I feel my DCS Vivaldi sounds extremely natural, something others disagree strongly, although they probably find natural LPs cut from DCS DACs ...

A pity we are so far from each other, the friend who bought my EMT 927 when I got the TechDas is trying to sell it ... Crazy thought : did you ever consider using a metal mat in your SME?

 

[Steve williams]

Yes, but some of us long before we listened from David have been reading about "sound natural" in magazines such as TAS, RdS, L'Audiophile and Stereophile. I think I know what David means with it - I built a system with all his approved ingredients - but it is not my current preference. Could I happily listen to it? Surely, but I prefer other approaches.

It’s called subjectivity

 

[PeterA]

It has also been my feeling. I know the SME30 pretty well and it is a coherent package, but no way the type of sound of the EMT927 or the Garrard 401. I can't understand how simply using components in an "out of tune status" helps making a system sound natural, although I feel my DCS Vivaldi sounds extremely natural, something others disagree strongly, although they probably find natural LPs cut from DCS DACs ...

A pity we are so far from each other, the friend who bought my EMT 927 when I got the TechDas is trying to sell it ... Crazy thought : did you ever consider using a metal mat in your SME?

I do not understand what you mean by "components in an out of tune status". The change to my system sound had little to do with components per se, but everything to do with the rack, the isolation, the cables, and the acoustic treatments. Removing those, and adjusting speaker toe out had everything to do with the improved sound. I have not considered using a metal mat on my SME.

Anyway, this is better discussed on a system thread rather than one about signatures and their effect on the reader or owner.

 

[microstrip]

I do not understand what you mean by "components in an out of tune status". The change to my system sound had little to do with components per se, but everything to do with the rack, the isolation, the cables, and the acoustic treatments. Removing those, and adjusting speaker toe out had everything to do with the improved sound. I have not considered using a metal mat on my SME.

I am addressing the separate SME armpod and using an highly resonant plate to sit the components and the toe-out. But our points have some convergence - it would seem that the "natural sounding" is just a question of accessories and set up.

Anyway, this is better discussed on a system thread rather than one about signatures and their effect on the reader or owner.

Well, the most interesting subjects always have shown as other thread spin-offs. Anyway this subject is particularly relevant to the main arguments pro and against signature listings.

 

[PeterA]

I am addressing the separate SME armpod and using an highly resonant plate to sit the components and the toe-out. But our points have some convergence - it would seem that the "natural sounding" is just a question of accessories and set up.

Well, the most interesting subjects always have shown as other thread spin-offs. Anyway this subject is particularly relevant to the main arguments pro and against signature listings.

Fransisco, I'm curious why you mention these three specific changes. I agree that set up has a lot to do with it. Steve Williams is finding that out now in his system. I do think that component choices also matter, but perhaps not as much as set up.

The armpod experiment was a fun effort to add a second tonearm to a table which only accepts one. With some help from SME and from ddk, I designed and had built my version of an outboard armpod. Unfortunately, I can not put the 3012R on the SME table but one day I will install the SME V-12 on the armpod. That should help me to understand the sound of the armpod relative to the SME table. For now, both sound good, so there are no obvious issues, at least to me. I am using the rubber grommets on the SME 3012R armbase and they must provide some isolation from any vibrations the steel picks up.

Similarly, the highy resonant steel plates under my components all have large rubber O rings under them, placed strategically based on experimentation. The components also have their stock rubber footers which further isolate the resonance of those plates. They are primarily used to mass load the plywood shelves of my DIY rack which damped the sound. This fine tuning sounds good to my ears.

The straight ahead, zero toe-in, was also a worthwhile experiment. In conjunction with the removal of the acoustic treatments, the sound became more "alive". I did find it much more difficult to find a satisfactory speaker location within the room though. Toeing the speakers toward the listener seem to be a more forgiving set up in my room. The direct versus reflected sound is the challenge here.

Three visitors besides me have commented on these changes. Results are not universally approved, though I much prefer them. Perhaps I should edit my signature to reflect the newfound priority I place on set up.

 

[bonzo75]

Just point to post numbers on your thread in the signature, no need to write twice

 

[PeterA]

Just point to post numbers on your thread in the signature, no need to write twice

It's cathartic and I find it interesting that Micro identified three specific changes, but not others. Also, he asked me about it and thinks that it is relevant to this thread topic. If you disagree, perhaps you could explain why or simply not read here what you think you have already read elsewhere.

 

[bonzo75]

It's cathartic and I find it interesting that Micro identified three specific changes, but not others. Also, he asked me about it and thinks that it is relevant to this thread topic. If you disagree, perhaps you could explain why or simply not read here what you think you have already read elsewhere.

I meant when you edit your signature, which you posted you would do at the end of the previous post. Not referring to the thread.

 

[ddk]

Yes, but some of us long before we listened from David have been reading about "sound natural" in magazines such as TAS, RdS, L'Audiophile and Stereophile. I think I know what David means with it - I built a system with all his approved ingredients - but it is not my current preference. Could I happily listen to it? Surely, but I prefer other approaches.

While I never claimed that I was the first person to use "natural" as an adjective regarding audio I'm pretty sure that none of the magazines you mention set "Natural" as their ultimate and ONLY goal! I'm also very familiar with two of those magazines, their editor's systems and a number of their reviewers that I visited on different occasion and I can say with 100% certainty that their definition of "natural" and the type of sound is the exact opposite of what I value and call "natural".

We all know you purchased a Lamm system then kind of threw it on the floor while experimenting with a bunch of other components and tweaks. Also as far as we know you never had a speaker that the ML3's could drive either. So between pursuing the magazine type of sound and no serious attempt at setup I have no idea what you achieved with my "approved" components as you put it.

You know very well that High End Audio isn't plug & play and you shouldn't dismiss Peter's efforts as nothing. Without any component changes just fixing the room acoustics and setting up his speakers correctly brought about huge gains towards the "natural" sound he was after. Previously the speakers and room were setup guided by the absolute sound. His additional steps were also taken in the same direction and away from the magazine's version. Of course everything is relative and there are different levels of "natural" it's up to the individual when things are good enough. Same thing with Steve, he was/is quite content with his equipment but a minor change in seating can be transformative. It's two different types of sound and he has a choice between more or less "natural". In many cases it's setup and not equipment.

david

 

[ddk]

I am using the rubber grommets on the SME 3012R armbase and they must provide some isolation from any vibrations the steel picks up.

Any noticeable vibration would have been picked up by 3012-r's ant-skating weight, very easy to see and not difficult to deal with in your setup.

david

 

[shakti]

many of the personal mails I do receive in WBF is related to one of the components in my signature listing.
out of this some nice personal chats did start. Sometimes even an inspiration regarding what to do next

(the idea to use a Glanz tonearm was born in such a mail contact)

The component list in my signature should invite people to talk about the listed components ,
to share their thoughts about them .

I can understand, that a too long component list in the signature is "too long",
so I cleaned up the list to become more focussed on my main set up,
leaving out my second vintage set up.

hope, that my actual Signature will meet more the expectations of the frequent writing WBF members.

 

[ddk]

I am addressing the separate SME armpod and using an highly resonant plate to sit the components and the toe-out. But our points have some convergence - it would seem that the "natural sounding" is just a question of accessories and set up.

Not only but setup is definitely a part of it. One can setup a system for different purposes and different types of sounds, "natural" is a goal as is what's defined as "absolute sound" since years ago, objectively there's little to no convergence between the two.

david

 

[Ovenmitt]

I appreciate seeing people’s equipment listed in their signature lines. It gives me some perspective on where they are coming from; how they like their listening presented, and maybe a general sense of their aesthetic.

It’s also nice when a person puts some sort of reference to the type of music they like to listen to. This also helps me with context - music to equipment to aesthetic. It’s all a generalization, but like someone else mentioned, it’s easier to start side conversations this way and make new friends; having a sense that a person shares your aesthetic for a certain sound, be it Johnny Guitar Watson or horn speakers, goes a long way in this internet world where we are typing and not talking.

 

[PeterA]

I was motivated to contact Al M Because of our mutual interest at the time in stand mounted monitor speakers. I think I first learned of his speakers by reading his system signature.

 

[microstrip]

While I never claimed that I was the first person to use "natural" as an adjective regarding audio I'm pretty sure that none of the magazines you mention set "Natural" as their ultimate and ONLY goal! I'm also very familiar with two of those magazines, their editor's systems and a number of their reviewers that I visited on different occasion and I can say with 100% certainty that their definition of "natural" and the type of sound is the exact opposite of what I value and call "natural".

Exactly my point - every one has a different view on what is "natural" since long.

We all know you purchased a Lamm system then kind of threw it on the floor while experimenting with a bunch of other components and tweaks. Also as far as we know you never had a speaker that the ML3's could drive either. So between pursuing the magazine type of sound and no serious attempt at setup I have no idea what you achieved with my "approved" components as you put it.

The ML3 can drive the XLF's, as long as I do not ask for warp9, as MiKe L. said. Or the Quad's. It is a great amplifier, simply it is not the type of sound I want now. I also own the M1.2R, that can drive anything and has the same type of sound, although not as exquisite. The tweaks I used in the Lamm system were the supplied SRA stands , Ching Cheng power cables, the ICs you kindly supplied me and Mogami speaker cables. Surely most of the time the source was the DCS Vivaldi. I always suppress the CenterStage footers or the TA network cables when I start evaluating gear. The Daiza's only arrived very recently.

You know very well that High End Audio isn't plug & play and you shouldn't dismiss Peter's efforts as nothing. Without any component changes just fixing the room acoustics and setting up his speakers correctly brought about huge gains towards the "natural" sound he was after. Previously the speakers and room were setup guided by the absolute sound. His additional steps were also taken in the same direction and away from the magazine's version. Of course everything is relative and there are different levels of "natural" it's up to the individual when things are good enough. Same thing with Steve, he was/is quite content with his equipment but a minor change in seating can be transformative. It's two different types of sound and he has a choice between more or less "natural". In many cases it's setup and not equipment.
david

I do not dismiss Peter or other people efforts, I just looked at the technical aspects of them. But nice to confirm that in many cases it is just setup. BTW, I think Steve has an highly tweaked system , YMMV.

 

[bonzo75]

A pity we are so far from each other, the friend who bought my EMT 927 when I got the TechDas is trying to sell it ... Crazy thought : did you ever consider using a metal mat in your SME?

EMT 927 shouldn't be the first or only table, but it is possibly the best second table, i.e. dedicated to playing only certain types of music