the issue is you've reduced sound to a FR graph - so I'm with Peter on this one. When you are making changes you never talk about spatial qualities (width, depth, dimensionality), timbre, micro dynamics, leading edge and decay, etc. You are only measuring a tiny part of the equation and with an extremely limited palette of measurements.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
My YGs measure more smoothly in my room, yet Ron much prefers the "less accurate" Fynes. One difference between the two on paper is the YGs had a suck out in the upper bass, while the Fynes are probably a hair over ripe in that region.
What I find interesting is Ron has an entire system of tubes (including in power supplies) but relies on FR charts. This seems counter intuitive.
Why adjust VTF by ear? How do you know 1.5 gram VTF is better than either 1.4 or 1.6? On what other basis would one adjust it or know which to use? If the Lyra manual states best sound occurs with 1.52, are you going to set it at that and leave it without trying other values? If a manufacturer states a range of say 1.8 to 2.1g, how do you know were to set it? Who determines what the VTF should be and how?
I think whether or not tracking force changes with different SRAs depends on the design of the arm. Then the question is at some point, by how much, and does it matter? If you can hear a difference, it matters, but how do you know if you are hearing the VTF or the SRA change? Once you get very close, which parameter matters most? Alignment changes when adjusting arm height too. Anti skate changes when adjusting tracking force. I do a lot of back and forth when setting up and fine tuning a cartridge until I settle on what sounds best.
I suppose you can just do it all by recommendations and measurements without listening to the results. Do you then just trust that set up, presuming it is best? Personally, I would need to verify by listening to alternative settings.
Last edited:
That is an excellent point about measurements corresponding to preference. I would be curious to see those charts posted in your speaker thread to see why Ron prefers the Fynes. I wonder whether or not Ron will remeasure with the new acoustic panels and share results here. Will he choose what sounds best or what looks best on the charts? Will the two be correlated? To me, his videos do not sound like what I would expect seeing his charts.
How is Ron's personal subjective goal of a system with a "center of gravity" between 100-1K depicted in these charts? What would such a response look like? A gradual, flat downward slope from 20 to 20K would not seem to indicate such a "center of gravity" or particular frequency emphasis.
Maybe I'm not understanding you, but the issue you are postulating is not an issue here at all. With regard to the objective frequency response chart measurement I am not talking about "spatial qualities (width, depth, dimensionality), timbre, micro dynamics, leading edge and decay" because those sonic attributes cannot be seen on a frequency response chart. I'm not talking about them, because I am not thinking or suggesting that my objective measurement process has anything to do with measuring those characteristics.
The only things I am evaluating using the objective frequency response charts are:
1) whether the presence of the AVAAs has smoothed out the bass bump around 55Hz, and
2) whether the rise in the 3 to 5kHz range has been smoothed out.
I find it is easy to hear whether the room boom is reduced or not subjectively, and I find it easy to hear any upper midrange brightness subjectively. But in terms of verifying the extent to which the various sizes and thicknesses of the acoustic absorption panels are smoothing out particular frequencies I find it very effective to use the objective measured frequency chart as a check. In other words I can hear easily upper midrange brightness, but I cannot tell from ears alone if the brightness peak is at 3kHz or 4Khz.
So I'm saying that your criticism that I am "only measuring a tiny part of the equation and with an extremely limited palette of measurements" is a bit inapposite because I am knowingly seeking to measure only a tiny part of the equation (frequency response) and with a very limited metric (frequency response real-time analyzer) -- and nothing more.
Last edited:
I am not seeing the connection between tubes and using a RTA to measure frequency response.
If you are assuming that the Io sounds romantic and bloomy, and that the system overall sounds deliberately warm, I think you're in for a surprise.
Peter, thank you for these questions.
What are you thinking "looks best on the charts?"
Ron, do you think the charts reflect what you hear from say 5K Hz up and from 40Hz down?
I care only about what sounds best. I don't care about what the chart looks like.
But the chart is very useful for verifying any upper midrange brightness I am hearing subjectively.
I don't know. I have not thought about that. I have not been using the objective frequency response measurements to answer that question.
I am using the objective frequency response measurements to evaluate only the two things I specified in Post #2,085:
The only things I am evaluating using the objective frequency response charts are:
1) whether the presence of the AVAAs has smoothed out the bass bump around 55Hz, and
2) whether the rise in the 3 to 5kHz range has been smoothed out.
And unfortunately using a simple measurement that was developed for anechoic chamber measurement (no boundaries) in room conditions. The result can be very misleading - IMO better tossing coins. BTW, the main objection to such procedure is that these graphs will always bias us.
Ron, I can not answer that. What charts are you asking about? I have not seen any new charts made after your recent changes to acoustic treatments, so I have no basis for making a comparison and judging what looks best. In general, I think smooth "looks" better than jagged.
Someday I may have a better idea about how smooth and how tilted a chart needs to be for me to think the system sounds natural. As I have posted, I do not hear the HF roll off indicated in your chart after 8K Hz when listening to your videos. I would also expect a different LF response below 50 Hz based on those massive woofer towers.
This is incorrect in my particular use case, because I hear subjectively clear cause-and-effect with the absorption panels (usually based on the relative tinkley-ness and brightness of piano on several recordings) and AVAAs, and this clear cause-and-effect is verified by the objective measurements.
Last edited:
How do you know if the results are or are not misleading in a specific case like Ron's? Ron says he verifies by listening and the tool works. Tossing a coin does not seem very helpful when trying to solve problems. What alternative would you suggest to Ron, Fransisco?
My other questions are about what a center of gravity of 100-1K Hz might look like on these charts of yours. I can not answer what looks best, but I am curious to know what you think a chart with such a center of gravity would look like? I have no idea because I do not understand the concept of a "center" when looking at a FR chart.
You have described this as a goal in your system, and you are making the effort of taking measurements and posting them, so I am really curious about your answer to this question.
I wish I had the kind of hearing that could ascertain differences in videos above 8khz and below 50hz.
This is because our ears are much more sensitive to certain frequencies than they are to other frequencies.
Last edited:
yes that’s hilarious. To me the videos sound quite good without the rolloff indicated in the chart. But more importantly, the visitors to Ron’s system don’t describe the rolloff at the extremes that are indicated in the charts.
Scott, also please don’t forget that Ron also indicated that the videos reflect the tone and resolution of his system. That is a very useful and helpful comment when assessing his videos.
Al M. recently visited Ron and heard his system. I am looking forward to reading his report and to see how he describes the sound given the objective assessment we have seen of the frequency response in the measurements.
Last edited:
I explained several times why the measurements are not the proper ones. And I (and others) suggested more than once RT60 versus frequency.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |