Proper Set Up Required for GREAT Sound. Agreed by All! But is it Improper Setup or Wrong Taste?

[morricab]

IMO Acoustics come first. We just have to make it clear that acoustics does not automatically mean room treatments. Why in my mind shouldn't the source come first? To me it should be a constant rather than a variable. We want the best sources wether we are listening to headphones, in a car, in a living room or a dedicated space. It is a given. Acoustics however, dictate the speakers which in turn dictate the appropriate amplifier. Power quality is also a constant in my mind.

i understand your position but I can't see power as a constant when in fact it is highly variable all over the world and I would argue that the majority of systems out there haven't seriously taken power into consideration, or only minimally so. I would also turn the speaker/amp relationship on it's head and buy the best speakers possible that fit with an amp that is world class. I would chose the speaker to fit the amp, not the other way around. So, if I felt that only a top notch SET amp will deliver the realism I need, then I would find the best speaker that will work with that SET.

For guys with unlimited budget this is perhaps not such a relevant discussion; however, for guys that must decide where to spend the lion's share of the budget it is of great concern. I will leave you with a thought experiment. If you could have a Wilson XLF but had to use it with a mid-price (<10K) SS amplifier and preamp or you could have a Living Voice OBX-RW (about a 15K speaker) with Kondo GakuhOh amps and KSL- M77 preamp, which would you choose? The speaker first guys would probably choose the Wilson with mediocre electronics but they would probably be missing out on much better musical experience if the budget were spent the other way around. I have little doubt which owner would be spending more time sitting down and listening to music rather than other activities. Now, I picked those extremes (200K speakers with 10K amps vs. 15K speakers with 200K amps) to highlight my point that the removal of electronic artifacts is more important to realism. Maybe you don't agree and that's fine but I have heard such demos and I know which one sounds clearly and unambiguously better.

i would argue pick the best electronics and source and then find the speaker that best fits those and works ok in the room. There are so many speaker choices out there today that there are bound to still be a few good candidates once you have eliminated those that don't work.

 

[Hieukm]

i understand your position but I can't see power as a constant when in fact it is highly variable all over the world and I would argue that the majority of systems out there haven't seriously taken power into consideration, or only minimally so. I would also turn the speaker/amp relationship on it's head and buy the best speakers possible that fit with an amp that is world class. I would chose the speaker to fit the amp, not the other way around. So, if I felt that only a top notch SET amp will deliver the realism I need, then I would find the best speaker that will work with that SET.

For guys with unlimited budget this is perhaps not such a relevant discussion; however, for guys that must decide where to spend the lion's share of the budget it is of great concern. I will leave you with a thought experiment. If you could have a Wilson XLF but had to use it with a mid-price (<10K) SS amplifier and preamp or you could have a Living Voice OBX-RW (about a 15K speaker) with Kondo GakuhOh amps and KSL- M77 preamp, which would you choose? The speaker first guys would probably choose the Wilson with mediocre electronics but they would probably be missing out on much better musical experience if the budget were spent the other way around. I have little doubt which owner would be spending more time sitting down and listening to music rather than other activities. Now, I picked those extremes (200K speakers with 10K amps vs. 15K speakers with 200K amps) to highlight my point that the removal of electronic artifacts is more important to realism. Maybe you don't agree and that's fine but I have heard such demos and I know which one sounds clearly and unambiguously better.

i would argue pick the best electronics and source and then find the speaker that best fits those and works ok in the room. There are so many speaker choices out there today that there are bound to still be a few good candidates once you have eliminated those that don't work.

200K speaker with high sensitivity and 15k amps would destroy 200k amp with 15k speaker.

Though i agree that unless the room is really bad. Electronics and speaker is more important than room acoustic nowaday.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I m unfortunately one of those deaf speaker first guys .
SET .... Only in tennis please .

 

[andromedaaudio]

Besides that , better spend 50 % on the room.
1% on tweaks cables

 

[JackD201]

i understand your position but I can't see power as a constant when in fact it is highly variable all over the world and I would argue that the majority of systems out there haven't seriously taken power into consideration, or only minimally so. I would also turn the speaker/amp relationship on it's head and buy the best speakers possible that fit with an amp that is world class. I would chose the speaker to fit the amp, not the other way around. So, if I felt that only a top notch SET amp will deliver the realism I need, then I would find the best speaker that will work with that SET.

For guys with unlimited budget this is perhaps not such a relevant discussion; however, for guys that must decide where to spend the lion's share of the budget it is of great concern. I will leave you with a thought experiment. If you could have a Wilson XLF but had to use it with a mid-price (<10K) SS amplifier and preamp or you could have a Living Voice OBX-RW (about a 15K speaker) with Kondo GakuhOh amps and KSL- M77 preamp, which would you choose? The speaker first guys would probably choose the Wilson with mediocre electronics but they would probably be missing out on much better musical experience if the budget were spent the other way around. I have little doubt which owner would be spending more time sitting down and listening to music rather than other activities. Now, I picked those extremes (200K speakers with 10K amps vs. 15K speakers with 200K amps) to highlight my point that the removal of electronic artifacts is more important to realism. Maybe you don't agree and that's fine but I have heard such demos and I know which one sounds clearly and unambiguously better.

i would argue pick the best electronics and source and then find the speaker that best fits those and works ok in the room. There are so many speaker choices out there today that there are bound to still be a few good candidates once you have eliminated those that don't work.

To me power is a constant in the sense that you should strive for quality power regardless just as I would for sources. Like sources it directly impacts and perhaps even defines the potential of a system.

I will make my case for going for the best source you can afford while leaving room for other necessities. The biggest thing is if you need to move, you can take it anywhere with you except heaven or hell. It is so good a reason, it doesn't even need any more to shore it up in the hierarchy. It is already obvious why we want the best software and hardware practicable to play them as consumers.

As for your thought experiment, I do not endorse mullet systems. Not that I consider the OBX or whatever 10k SS amp to instantly qualify a system for the mullet category. The OBX is to me a fine speaker and there are very good 10k and sub 10k amps out there. The question for me is whether or not the pairings bring out the best, the worst or are otherwise fundamentally compromised when working together. In the field there are speakers that are deficient in ways that they might actually mask shortcomings in the form of electronic artifice. Hard to hear bad treble when there's no treble to begin with. A certain company has made probably billions in home, pro and OEM automotive pumping out products that do just that. Isn't there another mantra? No bass is better than bad bass. If put under such dire circumstances, I personally, admit that I would go with this choice. That company does pretty much the opposite there too.

The thing is, and I'm not trying to sound uppity here, we just aren't part of the least common denominators subset. We're not better than them, we're just the picky guys that care more. So yes, we do not like any form of detritus unless it is part of the musical message and even then, such honesty mighty be too much to bear. Elimination of the artifice however still needs to enter the acoustic realm to be experienced and hopefully validated.

You do bring up an interesting point in that many loudspeakers scale up very well. The get better as the source and amplification get better. The large format speakers on the other hand demand quality sources and amplification from the get go. That still doesn't negate the fact that any and all of them should work well in the given space allotted them. Boundary interactions are intrinsic to the overall performance and are thus always major considerations in the design process. So, I understand the counter argument as well. What's the point of a clean and natural signal when it is either masked by environmental noise or mutilated by unwanted reverberation?

The answer then must be somewhere in the middle. Given limited time, energy and resources, it is no longer an ideological exercise but rather a management exercise where hopefully parameters might balance out in accordance to which compromises might be willingly made. You might find me growing into better speakers over time (which is actually my pattern of behavior) but as stated, at any given time I will have the best front end and pre I can afford. No. I would not go for an apex loudspeaker and play catch up with everything else. I would find that to be a most unenjoyable way of doing things.

 

[microstrip]

(...) For guys with unlimited budget this is perhaps not such a relevant discussion; however, for guys that must decide where to spend the lion's share of the budget it is of great concern. I will leave you with a thought experiment. If you could have a Wilson XLF but had to use it with a mid-price (<10K) SS amplifier and preamp or you could have a Living Voice OBX-RW (about a 15K speaker) with Kondo GakuhOh amps and KSL- M77 preamp, which would you choose? The speaker first guys would probably choose the Wilson with mediocre electronics but they would probably be missing out on much better musical experience if the budget were spent the other way around. I have little doubt which owner would be spending more time sitting down and listening to music rather than other activities. Now, I picked those extremes (200K speakers with 10K amps vs. 15K speakers with 200K amps) to highlight my point that the removal of electronic artifacts is more important to realism. Maybe you don't agree and that's fine but I have heard such demos and I know which one sounds clearly and unambiguously better.

i would argue pick the best electronics and source and then find the speaker that best fits those and works ok in the room. There are so many speaker choices out there today that there are bound to still be a few good candidates once you have eliminated those that don't work.

Although your thought experiment does not prove anything - IMHO these particular extremes are meaningless - your amplifier selection for the XLF shows a uncontrolled desire to minimize the sound quality of the XLF - we could get an excellent tube integrated, such as a Jadis DA88s, that is an excellent match to the XLF and spend a much more enjoyable time than with the Living Voice OBX-RW. Spending just a little more we could have a Jadis DA7 with the JPL - a great system. And yes, I tried both Jadis combinations with the XLF in my room!

 

[microstrip]

(...) The answer then must be somewhere in the middle. Given limited time, energy and resources, it is no longer an ideological exercise but rather a management exercise where hopefully parameters might balance out in accordance to which compromises might be willingly made.(...)

+1!

 

[morricab]

I m unfortunately one of those deaf speaker first guys .
SET .... Only in tennis please .

well, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

 

[morricab]

Although your thought experiment does not prove anything - IMHO these particular extremes are meaningless - your amplifier selection for the XLF shows a uncontrolled desire to minimize the sound quality of the XLF - we could get an excellent tube integrated, such as a Jadis DA88s, that is an excellent match to the XLF and spend a much more enjoyable time than with the Living Voice OBX-RW. Spending just a little more we could have a Jadis DA7 with the JPL - a great system. And yes, I tried both Jadis combinations with the XLF in my room!

It is not meaningless but goes to the heart of the issue. Of course you can find a decent sounding amp for the XLF that doesn't cost a fortune...but this is relative. And I will remind you that it was Wison Audio themselves that claimed you can get great sound from their speakers with modest sources and electronics.

You tried the OBX-RW with Kondo in your room?

I know the Jadis DA-7 quite well, and you are right that it is a good amp. My point, if you are capable of generalization (it seems you take things very literally), is that a great speaker with mediocre electronics will lack realism compared to a modest speaker with great electronics. I have heard this many times (many dealers demo Wilson, for example, with less than optimal electronics) and many systems are configured in this manner, although not as extreme as an XLF because of the speaker first mentality of a lot of dealers and magazines.

 

[morricab]

To me power is a constant in the sense that you should strive for quality power regardless just as I would for sources. Like sources it directly impacts and perhaps even defines the potential of a system.

I will make my case for going for the best source you can afford while leaving room for other necessities. The biggest thing is if you need to move, you can take it anywhere with you except heaven or hell. It is so good a reason, it doesn't even need any more to shore it up in the hierarchy. It is already obvious why we want the best software and hardware practicable to play them as consumers.

As for your thought experiment, I do not endorse mullet systems. Not that I consider the OBX or whatever 10k SS amp to instantly qualify a system for the mullet category. The OBX is to me a fine speaker and there are very good 10k and sub 10k amps out there. The question for me is whether or not the pairings bring out the best, the worst or are otherwise fundamentally compromised when working together. In the field there are speakers that are deficient in ways that they might actually mask shortcomings in the form of electronic artifice. Hard to hear bad treble when there's no treble to begin with. A certain company has made probably billions in home, pro and OEM automotive pumping out products that do just that. Isn't there another mantra? No bass is better than bad bass. If put under such dire circumstances, I personally, admit that I would go with this choice. That company does pretty much the opposite there too.

The thing is, and I'm not trying to sound uppity here, we just aren't part of the least common denominators subset. We're not better than them, we're just the picky guys that care more. So yes, we do not like any form of detritus unless it is part of the musical message and even then, such honesty mighty be too much to bear. Elimination of the artifice however still needs to enter the acoustic realm to be experienced and hopefully validated.

You do bring up an interesting point in that many loudspeakers scale up very well. The get better as the source and amplification get better. The large format speakers on the other hand demand quality sources and amplification from the get go. That still doesn't negate the fact that any and all of them should work well in the given space allotted them. Boundary interactions are intrinsic to the overall performance and are thus always major considerations in the design process. So, I understand the counter argument as well. What's the point of a clean and natural signal when it is either masked by environmental noise or mutilated by unwanted reverberation?

The answer then must be somewhere in the middle. Given limited time, energy and resources, it is no longer an ideological exercise but rather a management exercise where hopefully parameters might balance out in accordance to which compromises might be willingly made. You might find me growing into better speakers over time (which is actually my pattern of behavior) but as stated, at any given time I will have the best front end and pre I can afford. No. I would not go for an apex loudspeaker and play catch up with everything else. I would find that to be a most unenjoyable way of doing things.

Well, you have to realize that a large % of audiophiles do not think power filters/regenerators and/or cables affects sound and are content to use inexpensive and not particularly well constructed cables and plug straight into the wall. The debate over this issue rages all over the web. You of course are enlightend and don't find the idea of a need for clean power controversial. Many engineers in this industry would not be so understanding...

I think you are stepping around my thought experiment rather than trying to go through and evaluate it. I am well aware that you want it all but that is not the point of the exercise. The vast majority of audiophiles cannot have it all, or even a big slice of it all, therefore this kind of exercise is more than simply theoretical.

Realism doesn't rely on better bass or better treble per se, it relies on the reduction of reproductive artifacts that tell's our advanced pattern recognition systems that it's not real. Real can have little to no bass or highs and still sound real...you have to ask why and then it becomes not so clear that typical audiophile priorities are correct.

You are sounding uppity, sorry for saying so but you are sounding so, when probably a vast majority even on this forum have strict budget limits and must pick and choose their sonic priorities. You are not more picky, just more wealthy and can indulge the last few % that others cannot...doesn't mean you make good or bad choices...perhaps just a lot of choices... If your system is too "honest" to bear, then I would argue that in fact it is not honest and has a serious flaw somewhere.

In fact many large speakers are easier to drive than their smaller brethren...why it should demand a better source or amplification is not clear to me...can you explain this logic? What you can do though is go to a smaller and ostensibly higher quality amplifier because of higher sensitivity and/or impedance that is often the effect of scale up.

"What's the point of a clean and natural signal when it is either masked by environmental noise or mutilated by unwanted reverberation?"

Well, unless you live on a construction site or have a somehow unsual room, neither of these will significantly mask the benefits from getting the electronics and power as pure as possible.

"The answer then must be somewhere in the middle. Given limited time, energy and resources, it is no longer an ideological exercise but rather a management exercise where hopefully parameters might balance out in accordance to which compromises might be willingly made. You might find me growing into better speakers over time (which is actually my pattern of behavior) but as stated, at any given time I will have the best front end and pre I can afford. No. I would not go for an apex loudspeaker and play catch up with everything else. I would find that to be a most unenjoyable way of doing things"

You see your own idea of getting the source and pre right first is not far from my own thinking. In my case, I use an integrated amp (Aries Cerat Genus) so that comes as a package. I would also agree with growing into speakers, provided you didn't have to compromise on the amplification (for example needing to change to a lesser, but more powerful amp to accommodate the speaker), obviously the source and power can stay the same. It seems in practice we are not so far off...

 

[microstrip]

It is not meaningless but goes to the heart of the issue. Of course you can find a decent sounding amp for the XLF that doesn't cost a fortune...but this is relative. And I will remind you that it was Wison Audio themselves that claimed you can get great sound from their speakers with modest sources and electronics.

You tried the OBX-RW with Kondo in your room?

I know the Jadis DA-7 quite well, and you are right that it is a good amp. My point, if you are capable of generalization (it seems you take things very literally), is that a great speaker with mediocre electronics will lack realism compared to a modest speaker with great electronics. I have heard this many times (many dealers demo Wilson, for example, with less than optimal electronics) and many systems are configured in this manner, although not as extreme as an XLF because of the speaker first mentality of a lot of dealers and magazines.

My problem is just that I know what is proper generalization and I know how easy it is to make improper generalizations, particularly starting from misleading facts. In this extremely subjective and multi varied hobby generalizations are usually nonsense. BTW, I take starting examples literally because most of the time they are the Achilles knee of the argument.

My only experience with systems similar to what you describe was AudioNote modest speakers with their very expensive electronics. A good sound, excellent in some types of music, but very limited in others. Not my cup of tea.

Nice to know that you consider Wilson claims as your audio bible - sorry, I do not ... Neither those from other manufacturers ...

BTW, if you write "mediocre" concerning the low cost of one side of the argument and "modest" on the other side it is not worth debating ... Sorry, IMHO it is clear distortion of what was being debated.

 

[Elliot G.]

Elliot,
I find your words disturbing. Are you saying that you feel no one else could do the installation and tuning the way you would approve? Or that the equipment you sell is specially particular?

Disturbing?
No what I am saying there is I chose to service my clients in a very particular way. That way is to provide them with a complete experience and try to make sure they truly get what they pay for.
To much of this business today is get a discount and a box which I feel is a disservice to everyone involved.
If you choose that path it is totally your choice but I want more in everything that I buy and want to enjoy.
I respect expertise and I am willing to pay to learn what I don't know.
As far as my gear I do have more experience than most particularly here in The U.S, where it is just now being introduced. If that is disturbing I don't follow you at all.

 

[JackD201]

Well, you have to realize that a large % of audiophiles do not think power filters/regenerators and/or cables affects sound and are content to use inexpensive and not particularly well constructed cables and plug straight into the wall. The debate over this issue rages all over the web. You of course are enlightend and don't find the idea of a need for clean power controversial. Many engineers in this industry would not be so understanding...

I think you are stepping around my thought experiment rather than trying to go through and evaluate it. I am well aware that you want it all but that is not the point of the exercise. The vast majority of audiophiles cannot have it all, or even a big slice of it all, therefore this kind of exercise is more than simply theoretical.

Realism doesn't rely on better bass or better treble per se, it relies on the reduction of reproductive artifacts that tell's our advanced pattern recognition systems that it's not real. Real can have little to no bass or highs and still sound real...you have to ask why and then it becomes not so clear that typical audiophile priorities are correct.

You are sounding uppity, sorry for saying so but you are sounding so, when probably a vast majority even on this forum have strict budget limits and must pick and choose their sonic priorities. You are not more picky, just more wealthy and can indulge the last few % that others cannot...doesn't mean you make good or bad choices...perhaps just a lot of choices... If your system is too "honest" to bear, then I would argue that in fact it is not honest and has a serious flaw somewhere.

In fact many large speakers are easier to drive than their smaller brethren...why it should demand a better source or amplification is not clear to me...can you explain this logic? What you can do though is go to a smaller and ostensibly higher quality amplifier because of higher sensitivity and/or impedance that is often the effect of scale up.

"What's the point of a clean and natural signal when it is either masked by environmental noise or mutilated by unwanted reverberation?"

Well, unless you live on a construction site or have a somehow unsual room, neither of these will significantly mask the benefits from getting the electronics and power as pure as possible.

"The answer then must be somewhere in the middle. Given limited time, energy and resources, it is no longer an ideological exercise but rather a management exercise where hopefully parameters might balance out in accordance to which compromises might be willingly made. You might find me growing into better speakers over time (which is actually my pattern of behavior) but as stated, at any given time I will have the best front end and pre I can afford. No. I would not go for an apex loudspeaker and play catch up with everything else. I would find that to be a most unenjoyable way of doing things"

You see your own idea of getting the source and pre right first is not far from my own thinking. In my case, I use an integrated amp (Aries Cerat Genus) so that comes as a package. I would also agree with growing into speakers, provided you didn't have to compromise on the amplification (for example needing to change to a lesser, but more powerful amp to accommodate the speaker), obviously the source and power can stay the same. It seems in practice we are not so far off...

I've never met you, nor heard your system nor you heard the systems I've put together. All we have to go on is what we share here through a medium of exchange that is difficult and incomplete. I might not post all that much but I do follow many of the threads and the people in them. My take away from you is that your paradigm revolves around directly heated triodes extending to loudspeakers served well by them and that everything else is simply inferior. I respect that that is your view but that doesn't mean I have to be in lock step with you. I am well aware, obviously, of what these bring to the table as I represent two companies whose reputations are built on them. I also spent a lot of time exploring the topologies, the tubes, caps, resistors and OPTs via a series of custom builds. Aware as I am of what potentially great things they can bring to the table, I also know their limitations as I know from experience the good aspects and limitations of the other technologies.

When I say we care more, I refer to the quality of the listening experience or more precisely the enjoyment we get out of it. Let's just put this out there. Some recordings are just bad. Those artifacts you speak of are not solely in the realm of the reproduction chain. I have no problem with people who wish to make their systems more forgiving if their intention is to enjoy a wider range of music. It is a conscious decision. If the truth is that the music is good but the recording is bad, yes the truth can definitely be too difficult to bear and no that does not mean it is the system or its integrator's fault. If you think that going SET with any speaker will cure this and magically stop editorializing as if it has a mind of its own when a really good recording is played perhaps you should look in the mirror and face your own insinuations.

As for power quality and the man on the street, it is unfortunate that the belief is what comes out of the wall is actually x-volts at y-frequency and that is that. Most people do not know that the pollution actually distorts the sinusoidal wave that determines the rate at which current will alternate. I am not a preacher type however and simply hope that those that do care about sound quality will investigate this on their own and hopefully act in their own better interests.

As far as your thought experiment, I did try to get into it but all sorts of problems arise when listening space volume is not included in the premise. Supposing I did take your tack and opted for the Kondos and the OBX in my 3 x 7 x 11 meter room? How would that system be set up? The OBXs would be about a meter from the front wall and me at most maybe 2.5 meters away from them. I would be situated pretty much in the first 3rd of the room. That would be fine if it was a shared open plan space and that was all that I could allot myself. That however is not my situation. OBXs are roughly the same sensitivity as an XLF but let us be honest that while they may get to the mid nineties in dB at 1m, the XLF moves more air leading to what would be very different spectra. Leave the bass aside, you have larger drivers projecting the mids alone. The OBX's drivers would be sharing bass duties on top of that. This is important why? The XLF is meant to be listened to from a distance surely greater than 2 meters. The added distance means at least a 2dB drop in SPL which would now require more power to be used vs the OBX from 2m. Now take the bass into account and the radiation pattern. The XLFs is larger and covers more bandwidth that thus interacts with the room boundaries resulting in greater room gain. Add to that that the impedance is less flat and now you need more power still. There is nowhere to hide with a large format speaker be it planar, cone or horn and that is the logic behind quality and amount of the amplification being paramount from the get go. Ultimately, you gave me two choices I wouldn't take given my situation. I would still choose speakers and amplification that work together towards my requirements given the room I have. While you posit that less artifice is more desirable, which I do not refute, I'm saying there is more to consider as objectives and circumstance do differ. Now if that means you think my making these considerations mean I'm some rich guy that makes poor decisions, honestly I really don't care. All I know is I am happy and so are all our clients. While I do try to educate them on the use and maintenance of their purchases, I do not presume to impose my tastes onto them.

Lastly while I am indeed blessed with having a business some of the proceeds of which I and my partner have been able to funnel back into our personal systems, I worked, scrimped, saved and waited sometimes years for what I own now. No decision was whimsical as I certainly do not have the financial latitude to go through equipment like socks as you imply. My system is literally built with customer satisfaction.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

My problem is just that I know what is proper generalization and I know how easy it is to make improper generalizations, particularly starting from misleading facts. In this extremely subjective and multi varied hobby generalizations are usually nonsense. BTW, I take starting examples literally because most of the time they are the Achilles knee of the argument.

My only experience with systems similar to what you describe was AudioNote modest speakers with their very expensive electronics. A good sound, excellent in some types of music, but very limited in others. Not my cup of tea.

Nice to know that you consider Wilson claims as your audio bible - sorry, I do not ... Neither those from other manufacturers ...

BTW, if you write "mediocre" concerning the low cost of one side of the argument and "modest" on the other side it is not worth debating ... Sorry, IMHO it is clear distortion of what was being debated.

Achilles' knee? Is that how they got him after hitting him in the heel?

 

[RogerD]

I notice you are using NBS power cables. I am using NBS Omega Extreme at home and our demo room is all NBS Black Label II cables. These play a larger role in the overall improvement in sound than I would care to admit sometimes. Maybe NBS is no longer the end all, be all of power cables anymore but there is no doubt that they work very well in supressing or eliminating the impacts of various noise in the system.

Morricab, I started using NBS cables from Walter Fields about 1990. I have always thought that Walter always leveled with me about what made cables make a difference..noise reduction. He also explained that he used star grounding in some of his power conditioning units.
That was all I needed to start my long journey on star grounding. I have leaped many many magnitudes in reducing interference in my system and feel no need to upgrade to any cable.
I have always felt NBS cables reduce noise and to their limits do deliver Nothing But Signal. I just have found a better way to achieve NBS.

 

[BruceD]

Morricab, I started using NBS cables from Walter Fields about 1990. I have always thought that Walter always leveled with me about what made cables make a difference..noise reduction. He also explained that he used star grounding in some of his power conditioning units.
That was all I needed to start my long journey on star grounding. I have leaped many many magnitudes in reducing interference in my system and feel no need to upgrade to any cable.
I have always felt NBS cables reduce noise and to their limits do deliver Nothing But Signal. I just have found a better way to achieve NBS.

Indeed allow me to add a +1 for Walter Fields and his cabling--I too still use his Power Cables ( Statement)and custom made Black Box outlet throughout, since the early 90s and also have had no need to upgrade.

They deliver for me --and I am happy with the result.

I've conversed and met with Walter --he is an interesting and personable gentleman--I wonder how many folks realise he is also one of, I'd say few African American Hi End designers.

BruceD

 

[andromedaaudio]

well, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

You agree i nailed it ?

 

[morricab]

You agree i nailed it ?

More like you hammered it! ;-)

 

[morricab]

I've never met you, nor heard your system nor you heard the systems I've put together. All we have to go on is what we share here through a medium of exchange that is difficult and incomplete. I might not post all that much but I do follow many of the threads and the people in them. My take away from you is that your paradigm revolves around directly heated triodes extending to loudspeakers served well by them and that everything else is simply inferior. I respect that that is your view but that doesn't mean I have to be in lock step with you. I am well aware, obviously, of what these bring to the table as I represent two companies whose reputations are built on them. I also spent a lot of time exploring the topologies, the tubes, caps, resistors and OPTs via a series of custom builds. Aware as I am of what potentially great things they can bring to the table, I also know their limitations as I know from experience the good aspects and limitations of the other technologies.

When I say we care more, I refer to the quality of the listening experience or more precisely the enjoyment we get out of it. Let's just put this out there. Some recordings are just bad. Those artifacts you speak of are not solely in the realm of the reproduction chain. I have no problem with people who wish to make their systems more forgiving if their intention is to enjoy a wider range of music. It is a conscious decision. If the truth is that the music is good but the recording is bad, yes the truth can definitely be too difficult to bear and no that does not mean it is the system or its integrator's fault. If you think that going SET with any speaker will cure this and magically stop editorializing as if it has a mind of its own when a really good recording is played perhaps you should look in the mirror and face your own insinuations.

As for power quality and the man on the street, it is unfortunate that the belief is what comes out of the wall is actually x-volts at y-frequency and that is that. Most people do not know that the pollution actually distorts the sinusoidal wave that determines the rate at which current will alternate. I am not a preacher type however and simply hope that those that do care about sound quality will investigate this on their own and hopefully act in their own better interests.

As far as your thought experiment, I did try to get into it but all sorts of problems arise when listening space volume is not included in the premise. Supposing I did take your tack and opted for the Kondos and the OBX in my 3 x 7 x 11 meter room? How would that system be set up? The OBXs would be about a meter from the front wall and me at most maybe 2.5 meters away from them. I would be situated pretty much in the first 3rd of the room. That would be fine if it was a shared open plan space and that was all that I could allot myself. That however is not my situation. OBXs are roughly the same sensitivity as an XLF but let us be honest that while they may get to the mid nineties in dB at 1m, the XLF moves more air leading to what would be very different spectra. Leave the bass aside, you have larger drivers projecting the mids alone. The OBX's drivers would be sharing bass duties on top of that. This is important why? The XLF is meant to be listened to from a distance surely greater than 2 meters. The added distance means at least a 2dB drop in SPL which would now require more power to be used vs the OBX from 2m. Now take the bass into account and the radiation pattern. The XLFs is larger and covers more bandwidth that thus interacts with the room boundaries resulting in greater room gain. Add to that that the impedance is less flat and now you need more power still. There is nowhere to hide with a large format speaker be it planar, cone or horn and that is the logic behind quality and amount of the amplification being paramount from the get go. Ultimately, you gave me two choices I wouldn't take given my situation. I would still choose speakers and amplification that work together towards my requirements given the room I have. While you posit that less artifice is more desirable, which I do not refute, I'm saying there is more to consider as objectives and circumstance do differ. Now if that means you think my making these considerations mean I'm some rich guy that makes poor decisions, honestly I really don't care. All I know is I am happy and so are all our clients. While I do try to educate them on the use and maintenance of their purchases, I do not presume to impose my tastes onto them.

Lastly while I am indeed blessed with having a business some of the proceeds of which I and my partner have been able to funnel back into our personal systems, I worked, scrimped, saved and waited sometimes years for what I own now. No decision was whimsical as I certainly do not have the financial latitude to go through equipment like socks as you imply. My system is literally built with customer satisfaction.

My paradigm revolves around getting as close to live, unamplified sound in real space as possible with reproduction (recording permitting of course). I know this is now somewhat unfashionable as pure relativism has largely taken over hifi but that is my goal and paradigm. SET electronics, for all their flaws, are IMO the best way to get closest based on experimenting heavily with all electronic topologies (even in the relatively recent past). As for loudspeakers, well I am am currently using and loving horns but I am somewhat more agnostic on speakers, having enjoyed and loved large planars in the not too distant past. There are, IMO, more versions of truth in speakers than in electronics. BTW, with good SET, I do not consider this editorializing the sound, I consider it getting a cleaner sound...like using really good power cables. Less hash, noise and more natural everything. Obviously, really poor recordings should not sound beautiful afterwards but I would say that one can easily hear the flaws but not be driven from the room screaming.

Well, again it seems you get hung up in my thought experiment about the size of the speaker, the room, the volume level, blah blah blah. I am asking you to think how each will SOUND when driven by a certain type and class of electronics and how those electronics shape the sound. Since it is a though experiment both can be setup optimally and independently. Let's just take the setup, distance, room etc. out of hte equation...surely you can imagine this? A lot of the things you mention are of course important for overall setup but irrelevant to my thought experiment. I am not making this thought experiment as purely theoretical. I have heard Living Voice OBX-RW with Kondo and Einstein (OTLs not hybrids) as well as other mid-price speakers like AudioPlan Konzert IIs with Kondo GakuOH and GakuON and New Audio Frontiers (as a more price reasonable alternative) and these will beat for overall musicality, naturalness and just sounding more real than ANY Wilson speaker with ANY SS amplifier or Class D amplifier and a good number of PP tube amps as well (like Audio Research Ref 150s and Ref 5se preamp, which I heard a few times now with Wilson Alexia, for example). I have repeated the exercise with the big Focal Grande Utopia BE EM (electromagentic bass damping), where a small KR VA350i brutalized a big pair of Electrocompaniet monos + pre. The dealers eyes were wide with disbelief. That was in a big room no less. In general, the room size is not as relevant as you think because you would never sit 7 or 8 meters from your speakers, would you??? I normally site between 3 and 4 meters from all my systems (I have three currently). I made a couple of Wilson owners scratch their heads with KR, putting one on a Grand SLAMM Mk I that destroyed his Class A Jeff Rowland amps, this in about a 30 sq.meter room. and a Grand SLAMM mk3 in a 100 sq. meter room against big Krell monos. The KR just sounded more realistic in ways that matter more than bigger bass, airier highs and whatever other audiophile verbiage you want to use. I also shocked a guy with a Acapella Violon with KR when it out did his Electrocompaniet/Ayre combo. His response, buy a big Pass X600...however, 1 year later I saw his speakers up for sale...clearly MORE power didn't do the trick. A Living Voice or AudioPlan speaker with VERY good electronics will provide a more satisfying sound musically because of the reduction in synthetic artifacts. That is the point of my thought experiment but you didn't really engage in this just wanted to get lost in the details of speaker design and setup...it doesn't MATTER. You can have a big, reference speaker (most of these are crap, btw.) setup up in perfectly in a perfect room and ruin the sound completely with poor electronics and power choices...conversely you can get great sound with moderate speakers, great electronics and power and setup nothing special in a room that is nothing special. Speaker, setup and room are icing on the cake, IMO and rarely make or break the sound. I would argue that most of the poor sound at shows has nothing to do with the rooms or the speakers but how it is all driven.

A final anecdote. When I was a KR dealer back in 2006-2010, I was hanging out in the KR room one year in Munich where they were teamed up with Cessaro speakers. That year was the Alphas, big but not overwhelming. During most of the show I was horribly disappointed with the sound, it was thin, harsh without much bass punch no soundstage depth...just really hifi and uninteresting. I thought to myself, "Jesus, these Cessaros are poor speakers because I know how good KR can sound with other speakers...it is strange because these speakers should be ideal for them". Then I was sitting on a Saturday evening just as the show stops for the day and was chatting with a guy. All of a sudden my attention was jerked away from the guy to the sound coming from the system and I thought simply, "Hey now that sounds really good all of a sudden"! I listened for a few minutes and then I realized something important had changed...the power. All the rooms around ours had shut down for the evening and this seemed to have a dramatic effect on the sound quality that was now coming through our still running system. Anyone who had heard it during the day might go "Meh, that is not as good as expected" but anyone who had heard it once the power quality improved would have been "Hey, now that is what I am talking about!". I have no doubt a lot of poor sound at shows can be attibuted to this effect.

I think it is also a big reason that Living Voice/Kondo (almost) every year gets great sound. They are completely decoupled from the power grid at the M.O.C in Munich...they run on a battery regeneration system that allows their system to perform optimally...and no one would argue that the rooms are ideal in Munich and especially not for such a system but it sounds more realistic than just about anything else out there. Of course they do their best in the speaker positioning but they don't go overboard with treatments like some rooms. The power and the gear drives that system to such heights. There was the LV Palladian + Engstrom amps as well this year and it was a big step down...

I was not implying that you personally change equipment like socks...I was not implying you didn't earn or didn't select carefully what you have.

 

[bonzo75]

+1 on the KR attributes. Those amps will be my favorite type of SETs to try on such cones. Recently I heard the VA 200 monos. Loved them. I plan to now try them on tannoys, and hopefully MLs. They are clean, great bass and Midbass, deep stage, lovely body, decay, tone and drive. Loads of energy.