Do you really think someone would go and listen to Ron’s system and listen only to digital? Yes it’s a valid question and Lloyd answered it and he listened to all three sources to form his evaluation. Al and Ian did the same, and if I ever go I will do the same. The fact that I listen only to vinyl at home does not matter. And the fact that Al and Lloyd listen to digital only at home does not matter.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Do you really think someone would go and listen to Ron’s system and listen only to digital? Yes it’s a valid question and Lloyd answered it and he listened to all three sources to form his evaluation. Al and Ian did the same, and if I ever go I will do the same. The fact that I listen only to vinyl at home does not matter. And the fact that Al and Lloyd listen to digital only at home does not matter.
And you don't think a person can have differing view of a system with different sources, which is what I had asked?
Bonzo, I think that depends.
if you’re asking about the system, you are in fact evaluating the sources as part of the system, and there will be differences, as Al pointed out. If you’re going to evaluate source components, I don’t really know how that is done without considering the context of the system in which those sources exist. The sources will sound different and the media is different. But you still get a general sense of whether or not the system makes music, is bright and lean, has good imaging, is dynamic etc. you can generally tell whether the system sounds natural or not, and the source can make a difference. Here, the digital guys preferred analog.
Lloyd, Al, and Ian gave their opinions about Ron’s system in general and then had some comments about the differences with the different sources. I think this is a pretty valid and typical approach.
I responded to you by saying it’s a valid question that you asked Lloyd. But frankly I don’t think anyone would go to Huron system and only listen to digital. So it is not a question I would have ever asked Lloyd. He answered it and he listened to all the sources, just as Al and Ian did.
That's correct, Peter. If Ron hadn't asked for this, I probably would not have thought of it, and if I remember correctly, Ian and I had not discussed the issue prior to Ron's request. I knew from the last time that analog tape was the best source in his system, so I really wanted to hear it again. Yet I also looked forward to hearing the vinyl, which I hoped would be better than the Denon turntable and it was, to my great enjoyment. The level of relaxation of sound came much closer to tape this time.
Bringing CDs was useful to get a diagnostic grasp on some qualities of Ron's system, so his request was a good one. Yet as last time, analog tape was the highlight, and I was loving it.
Yes, and you do not listen to analog tape at home yet you could evaluate the sound of the system. I suspect that is because your references live acoustic music, and more than comparing one format to another or one source to another, you are judging what you hear based on your live music reference. This is how I also approach it.
Others may have a different approach. And when asked specifically which format you prefer, you will have an answer and reasons why.
Yes, I don't care what gives me the most realistic sound in a given system. In that sense I am format agnostic. When it comes to my own system I have a digital-only preference for many reasons, mostly practical ones, and I am very happy with my sound. Yet I am not a digital fundamentalist.
I don't understand this concept of choosing where you are seated for a classical performance, with a stereo. The way it was recorded is not in your control. Each album will vary based on that.
I agree and was surprised when someone reported that Ron‘s system has an upfront presentation. People do it like that and a system can be set up to give this on many different recordings. If the system is high-performing and transparent, the listening perspective will depend on how the recording was made and it will change accordingly. This quality is a big difference between my former and current system. Recordings now sound much more different from each other
Dear Lloyd,
It was great to see you in person again! Thank you for visiting!
Thank you very much for your thoughts! I think you have a great deal of experience with top systems, and I very much value your impressions, insight and advice.
I understand your perspective on the uber amplifier idea. It would have been interesting to get your thoughts on the system driven by the VTLs versus the JA100s.
If I won the lottery I would get two Goebel Sovereign subwoofers. I think 18 inchers programmed for 25 Hz on down with a sharp slope (so they don't excite my room's 45 Hz room mode) would provide the spacial ambience you are looking for.
I definitely need to continue to experiment with speaker positioning. I just don't have the head of steam to do that at the moment.
Thank you, again, for your great thoughts and detailed report!
I have one reference recording where I know from the recording engineer exactly how it was made: what distance the single stereo ribbon microphone was from the stage and it’s height, how much EQ (very little) and how much compression (only a couple dB). I was lucky enough to hear a live performance of the same piece (Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet) sitting at about the same distance from the stage as the microphone in the recording. I realized then that this recording was probably the most accurate I own to possibly creating a live experience at home.
Hi for my own part (in having probably been the one who kicked off this particular part of thread with my comment about being a front of balcony guy not front row orchestra guy):
I simply used that term as another way of saying I would have preferred not to be sitting in what I felt was within the 'near field' of the speakers..because it is too 'orchestra row 1' for me. By sitting outside the equilateral triangle of a speaker set up...it is much more like sitting in the balcony row 1 for me (of the system itself). And I find I enjoy how the system's music/sound interacts with the room and my ears more because I feel like I have more space in which to take it all in. Somehow, nearfield just seems too 'full on' for me. On hard left, hard right elements of a recording, when you sit further back, it also does not ping pong as much...whereas if one sits inside the nearfield, the sound does ping hard left and then hard right...just not a personal preference of mine.
Some people feel the same when they go to the movies...some love the front row. Me, I sit in center middle (or center aisle so I can get to the popcorn!)
Another example, I prefer to sit 'outside' the equilateral triangle space of our system at home.
i want to sit where each recording is the most distinctive. where differences are most clear. where the most coherent musical presentation, maximum dynamic life, and maximum natural information is heard. you hear music, and not the speakers, and not the room. but that's just what i like. no absolutes.
my system is optimized for slightly near field listening. and superb top to bottom true full range balance. maximum holodeck effect. 115" tweeter to tweeter, 109" tweeter to ear. speakers 9.5' off the front wall, listening position almost dead center front to back in a 29' long room.
far field listening positions neuter differences to some degree. they are 'all' a bit relatively 'over there'. which makes recordings less distinctive in some ways, and brings in more of the speaker and room.
nothing wrong with any particular preference. it's a comfort zone thing. but some systems make it difficult to even try near field, too much reflective energy. so the reasons why far field is preferred can vary. another factor is your mind seeing large speakers too close up. it can take time to adjust to that and allow your ears to hear 'free' from your vision interfering. i observe it takes new visitors 45 minutes to 2 hours to get use to sitting close to my twin 7 foot tall towers. and some never get use to it.
but it is important to understand the cause and effect at work and be aware of choices. don't judge gear, systems, or recordings without listening position context.
my system is optimized for slightly near field listening. and superb top to bottom true full range balance. maximum holodeck effect. 115" tweeter to tweeter, 109" tweeter to ear. speakers 9.5' off the front wall, listening position almost dead center front to back in a 29' long room.
far field listening positions neuter differences to some degree. they are 'all' a bit relatively 'over there'. which makes recordings less distinctive in some ways, and brings in more of the speaker and room.
nothing wrong with any particular preference. it's a comfort zone thing. but some systems make it difficult to even try near field, too much reflective energy. so the reasons why far field is preferred can vary. another factor is your mind seeing large speakers too close up. it can take time to adjust to that and allow your ears to hear 'free' from your vision interfering. i observe it takes new visitors 45 minutes to 2 hours to get use to sitting close to my twin 7 foot tall towers. and some never get use to it.
but it is important to understand the cause and effect at work and be aware of choices. don't judge gear, systems, or recordings without listening position context.
Last edited:
Does Analog EQ belong in State of the Art Systems?
I have always had a purist high-end audio philosophy which makes equalizers anathema to me in a high-end audio system. I have always felt that the fewer discrete electrical components an audio signal passes through, and the fewer entire boxes of components an audio signal passes through, the...
www.whatsbestforum.com
What happens when two incompatible philosophies collide? When, philosophically speaking, an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
Philosophy 1: no EQ in an ultra high-end system!
Philosophy 2: mechanical problems have mechanical solutions
Philosophy 1: no EQ in an ultra high-end system!
Philosophy 2: mechanical problems have mechanical solutions
Last edited:
No one is more dogmatically and philosophically opposed to using an external EQ device than I am:
-- loss of transparency
-- additional components, connectors, wires
-- additional active amplification circuit
-- a governor on dynamics
-- totally cheating in the world of high-end audio.
-- loss of transparency
-- additional components, connectors, wires
-- additional active amplification circuit
-- a governor on dynamics
-- totally cheating in the world of high-end audio.
Last edited:
I have some occasional tinnitus and hearing damage, very likely from loads of concerts my father took me to in the 1980s. I believe that the hearing damage has petrified into me being very sensitive to sound (voices and instruments) in the 4kHz to 6kHz region.
As you know I have struggled with what I perceive subjectively to be a slight edginess in the 4kHz to 6kHz region of my stereo system. Interestingly I hear this edginess more than anyone else hears it.
I spent this afternoon and evening playing with a Schitt Loki Max on the big stereo.
Here are the current settings:
120Hz +2dB
400Hz +2.4
6kHz -3.6dB
While the 4kHz to 6kHz edginess is totally gone, I also like the additional bit of warmth from raising the upper bass to lower midrange region.
I am hearing a slight diminution in transparency through the Loki Max. (On its own terms the Loki Max is a fantastic product at a very reasonable price!) I assume EveAnna Manley's Mid Frequency EQ device would be more transparent than the Loki Max.
As you know I have struggled with what I perceive subjectively to be a slight edginess in the 4kHz to 6kHz region of my stereo system. Interestingly I hear this edginess more than anyone else hears it.
I spent this afternoon and evening playing with a Schitt Loki Max on the big stereo.
Here are the current settings:
120Hz +2dB
400Hz +2.4
6kHz -3.6dB
While the 4kHz to 6kHz edginess is totally gone, I also like the additional bit of warmth from raising the upper bass to lower midrange region.
I am hearing a slight diminution in transparency through the Loki Max. (On its own terms the Loki Max is a fantastic product at a very reasonable price!) I assume EveAnna Manley's Mid Frequency EQ device would be more transparent than the Loki Max.
I agree one has no control over how an acoustic performance was recorded -- or later mixed -- in a concert hall. And one ideally should perceive differences in performances accordingly. I've kinda come to the view that the number of microphones used and their placement plays a big role. Heavily mic'd recordings would seem to present a greater challenge to the mixing engineers. I tend to prefer the 'golden age' engineers -- Decca, Living Stereo, Mercury, Lyrita, etc. -- using relatively fewer mics. Then there is the question of what is their goal. Do they want to create a reproduced sound that is closest to what a listener hears from some particular area of available seating? Or do they want to highlight particular performers or sections at interesting points in the music. Or something else ...
I suspect a significant difference between hearing a performance live and hearing it reproduced through a stereo is the stereophony effect -- the two sources effect. I'll speculate that many have a goal of removing that effect for reproduction through seating and speaker placement.
This is true but it can sound better than 90 - 95% of systems which have issues, i.e. where due to room speaker mismatch, electronics mismatch, etc the system needs fixes. EQ allows you to easily fix it and make the whole thing relaxing like the problem has gone away. It also takes away tonal purity and some emotion but on amplified female vocals this will be less/possibly not make a difference, you might just notice change in balance that you have lost the hardness. But it is just a fix, and useful for all digital systems. But for an all out analog system, passive is required to excel.
Here are some videos of a well done horn system using Accuphase filter.