Ron’s New System

[wil]

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.

Interesting about the Loki. I bet it could be useful on some recordings that present problems.

Two recent listening example for me: John Adam's, Son of Chamber Symphony where an energetic piccolo comes in at times that has too much bite for my ears. My intuition is that it would probably have the same effect (or worse) on me live. Another example from Cat Power Sings Dylan (on only one track) the harmonica gets a little shrill. The harmonica on the other tracks is fantastic.

I think my ears have grown more sensitive to high frequencies. The other day a Cardinal decided to fly under our porch overhang and commenced calling with an urgent and intense high frequency. I couldn't tolerate it.

I don't think this would have bothered me when I was 30. An audiologist who checked my hearing recently found it to be good, but explained as your ears get older, their ability to modulate (close down) in response to very loud sounds will atrophy a bit.

 

[PeterA]

Please read what I wrote. I am not talking about your ears or about ears in general.

I am talking about the sensitivity my ears have in a particular frequency range.

Ron, can you show measurements which illustrate this 4-6K Hz issue in your system/room, or are you saying that even with a flat response, your ears will sense in issue in this range because of your tinnitus and so this range needs to be attenuated?

Do you hear this in other systems too?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, how do you define "the world of ultra high-end audio"? What does this mean?

I'm not interested in a pointless definitional debate, so I deleted "ultra" from my post. I should not have used a potentially inflammatory term for no good reason.

 

[Al M.]

Ron
What we need is a-bit richer sound between 200-400hz to feel the music is better.
If you read the jim smith book he desribe it and in a right speaker position you will get max musicality.
Please read those links you may find it useful and convince to put your time for speaker placement.

the difference between your EQ approach and my method is you want to speaker be fix and use EQ but I say no need to EQ and change the speaker position

Speaker positioning can go a long way,. but you can't achieve any tonal balance you want with it.

 

[PeterA]

I'm not interested in a pointless definitional debate, so I deleted "ultra" from my post. I should not have used a potentially inflammatory term for no good reason.

I understand. It may or may not have been a pointless definitional debate. People are always describing different tiers of performance in this hobby, so I was just curious about what you meant. I think you would agree that cost does relate to performance.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Interesting about the Loki. I bet it could be useful on some recordings that present problems.

Two recent listening example for me: John Adam's, Son of Chamber Symphony where an energetic piccolo comes in at times that has too much bite for my ears. My intuition is that it would probably have the same effect (or worse) on me live.

What is your philosophy here, then? My view is that if a particular recording reflects accurately what you would hear live in the concert hall -- even if subjectively you hear live too much "bite" -- then I would say your stereo is doing a great job!

 

[bonzo75]

If you need EQ to fix this I suggest you sell off the speakers, phono, pre and amp

and get either tannoy, Devore orangutans, or the PBN that you liked, or go back to your Martin Logans that you stayed with for 20 years.

This Is quite shocking after all this custom room treatment and some auditioning you need to put in EQ to fix your highs

 

[wil]

If you need EQ to fix this I suggest you sell off the speakers, phono, pre and amp

and get either tannoy, Devore orangutans, or the PBN that you liked, or go back to your Martin Logans that you stayed with for 20 years.

This Is quite shocking after all this custom room treatment and some auditioning you need to put in EQ to fix your highs

It seems you are ignoring all the positive reports of those who have listened to his system. I believe Ron's talking about his particular hearing having a sensitivity to a frequency range and using eq to address that sensitivity.

 

[bonzo75]

It seems you are ignoring all the positive reports of those who have listened to his system. I believe Ron's talking about his particular hearing having a sensitivity to a frequency range and using eq to address that sensitivity.

his auditioning process’ main objective was to avoid exactly that. He was very sensitive to that frequency.

i have no interest in visitors’ polite reports anymore. I can read what was used to audition. Digital people auditioning vinyl set ups, what records were used, etc

without videos it is pointless

 

[Audiohertz2]

his auditioning process’ main objective was to avoid exactly that. He was very sensitive to that frequency.

i have no interest in visitors’ polite reports anymore. I can read what was used to audition. Digital people auditioning vinyl set ups, what records were used, etc

Says the digital only guy buying and auditioning LP’s with no TT ...

 

[wil]

What is your philosophy here, then? My view is that if a particular recording reflects accurately what you would hear live in the concert hall -- even if subjectively you hear live too much "bite" -- then I would say your stereo is doing a great job!

My thought is I have a hearing sensitivity to aggressive piccolos, un-restrained harmonicas, near field bellowing Cardinals, etc. I also cover my ears when a siren passes close by or when trucks backing up go "Beep, Beep, Beep!"

But I don't think for me it warrants inserting EQ for the occasional out of bounds high frequencies.

 

[bonzo75]

Says the digital only guy buying and auditioning LP’s with no TT ...

Actually, that is an excellent epigram. It shows the NLF days were left behind. Not fighting the same digital is good battle every month but progressing on qualities of LP recordings instead

 

[wil]

not sure i'm saying what you are saying, but maybe.

when i say that far field listening position tends more to have an 'over there' perspective relatively, it's that the music can't quite be as immersive (by degrees) as it can be near field. not exactly the same thing as the "you are there" or "they are here" idea. but far field<->near field will influence degrees of presentation differences.

and there are matters of taste....not everyone likes a super holographic immersive presentation. or has not been able to get comfortable with it....yet.

to me ideally....in a perfect reproduction world......in my system it's the recording that tends to determine whether the players are in my room with me, or we are at the venue......or "third choice" neither is going on. just a 'meh' recording where presence clues are lacking (might still be great music) and hard to pin down things. my system can do the intimate, and the mid scale, and large and really large scale. and all at a high level. i'll admit it took a decade to achieve high performance levels with intimate recordings in my new room, equal of better than my old smaller room. doing both is the trick.

i agree that certain systems......say the 'classic' SET/Efficient Speaker with limited bandwidth is gong to tend toward the 'they are here' sort of intimate presentation. and the big box speaker solid state amp low noise high dynamics system will tend toward taking you to the venue by lighting up the corners and adding to the sense of space. so two alternate system characters. and so not every recording is completely served to be all it can be. not saying that this means that there is anything wrong, only different strengths of presentation with many/most systems. plenty of systems are effective doing both, but it's a big challenge to get it done. most cannot.

so my view is that my nearfield listening position, system and room tune situation, does allow for each recording to reach it's ideal presentation potential.....whatever that might be. far field is less capable all other things being equal.

This is something I've been experimenting with and thinking about lately.

When I first started on this journey, I preferred listening 15' back when seated and as far back as 35' when on my feet working on something. My room is 15x45'. Closer than 12' struck me as bordering on bizarre.

I've since come to appreciate a distance of 10' and closer. And lately I'm loving the experience at 8' which is certainly near-field for these big MM7's.

It's more immersive and allows a greater experience of getting inside the recording with less room reflection.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

his auditioning process’ main objective was to avoid exactly that. He was very sensitive to that frequency.

i have no interest in visitors’ polite reports anymore. I can read what was used to audition. Digital people auditioning vinyl set ups, what records were used, etc

without videos it is pointless

i think generally dismissing visitor feedback is a bad direction. at Ron's or anywhere. as if you are the system feedback police. i think each one stands on it's own. i do respect you have made audio hifi tourism a life work.

i understand that you have your own system investigation culture and standards, but maybe find another way to make your point.

 

[bonzo75]

i think generally dismissing visitor feedback is a bad direction. at Ron's or anywhere. as if you are the system feedback police. i think each one stands on it's own. i do respect you have made audio hifi tourism a life work.

i understand that you have your own system investigation culture and standards, but maybe find another way to make your point.

I didn't bring the point up at all. The point I brought up was EQ is bad, and how did Ron end up with a system that has the exact attribute he is most trying to avoid.

Yesterday I asked if the auditioning with different sources gave different results or not.

Each time, readers twist what I said to put in their talking points instead of to my point, like Wil did, (which is the nature of a forum), and I am compelled to reply.

Does it really matter what people wrote (or genuinely thought) if Ron ended up with a system that has THE attribute he is trying to avoid and now needs EQ?

 

[PeterA]

his auditioning process’ main objective was to avoid exactly that. He was very sensitive to that frequency.

i have no interest in visitors’ polite reports anymore. I can read what was used to audition. Digital people auditioning vinyl set ups, what records were used, etc

without videos it is pointless

I know what you mean because Ron shared a “polite“ report after he visited me with my old system. He did not report truthfully what he thought about what he heard. But I have spoken privately to both Al and to Ian, and they sounded very impressed with Ron’s system.

A video would be good as it was recently on Mike’s system visit thread.

I disagree with your dividing people into either “digital“ or “vinyl“ people. Regardless of preferred format at home, people who reference live acoustic music can certainly express their opinions about what they hear. It’s fine if you don’t respect them, but your comment is overly harsh and too general.

 

[Al M.]

This is something I've been experimenting with and thinking about lately.

When I first started on this journey, I preferred listening 15' back when seated and as far back as 35' when on my feet working on something. My room is 15x45'. Closer than 12' struck me as bordering on bizarre.

I've since come to appreciate a distance of 10' and closer. And lately I'm loving the experience at 8' which is certainly near-field for these big MM7's.

It's more immersive and allows a greater experience of getting inside the recording with less room reflection.

While I have smaller speakers than you do, I also prefer to sit close. Lately it has been at 8' as well, partially also due to practical considerations of bass-related room-speaker coupling in my particular room.

As you do, I love the immersive experience. Funny thing is, with a good number of orchestral recordings the image is still projected further back and rather large (at least as much as my room allows for it), providing good contrast to the more immediate presentation of smaller-scale music.

 

[bonzo75]

I disagree with your dividing people into either “digital“ or “vinyl“ people. Regardless of preferred format at home, people who reference live acoustic music can certainly express their opinions about what they hear. It’s fine if you don’t respect them, but your comment is overly harsh and too general.

I totally disagree. People who experience live music end up with all sorts of hifi, from Bose to Magico to vintage horns. That is a whole another discussion that has been had.

I have heard the same system sounding bad with digital and bad records, and sounding great with originals and quality records. I prefer such systems, rather than one where bad quality recordings and good quality recordings both drive you to a good judgement of the system.

 

[Al M.]

I know what you mean because Ron shared a “polite“ report after he visited me with my old system. He did not report truthfully what he thought about what he heard. But I have spoken privately to both Al and to Ian, and they sounded very impressed with Ron’s system.

Correct. My report is my report, nothing embellishing about it (and I wasn't particularly gentle on Ron's digital either, even though it has and revealed some impressive characteristics).

I disagree with your dividing people into either “digital“ or “vinyl“ people. Regardless of preferred format at home, people who reference live acoustic music can certainly express their opinions about what they hear. It’s fine if you don’t respect them, but your comment is overly harsh and too general.

Agreed. It makes no sense.

 

[Folsom]

1. The high range issue can be corrected by an easy inserted part that is designed directly from manufacturer of the driver. (I've offered to quote it out for Ron, made with Neutriks to be plug and play, made very nicely.)

2. The low end issues I would put money on being issues with the electronics and nothing to do with the speakers. If I can make 4" drivers sound powerful in 100-500hz, there should be no issue with Pendragons. The Pendragons don't even have floor bounce. In fact I know a lot of things that tend to gut that range, that are electronic flaws.