Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

Do you prefer the sound of an analog recording on vinyl or the sound of a digital recording on your digital playback?

Obviously these are never going to be the same recording, so I'm not sure I understand the question. In general I find analog playback more natural, more believable and achieving of a greater suspension of disbelief.

Or are they close enough that you simply pick out what you wanna listen to and go with that format?

I believe I answered this in Post # 5,737 and 5,739.

 

[crosswind]

Anette Askvik's Liberty must be a digital recording but I listen to this album on vinyl. (So this is an exception to my native format general rule.)

Hi Ron, this is what Vidar Lunden, the man behind Liberty told me about the album. (Google translated from norwegian to english)

“After all, I did most of the recordings for/on Anette's "Liberty" album. It is possible that Øystein Sevåg made some arrangements in his home studio afterwards, and he mixed the album. Øystein is an extreme pedometer, and is fantastically skilled...and not least very pleasant and fun to work with!

My studio at the time was probably what we can call a digital studio. I did all the recordings in ProTools. I used a number of external analogue preamps, and microphones are, after all, analogue by nature...before the signals are digitized either in pre-amps or when they are converted digitally in ProTools.

I mean to believe that Øystein also mixed "in the box", i.e. in ProTools, without going the route of an analogue or digital mixer.

During the mastering with Morten Lund, the signal will probably also go through what you would call analog signal processing, before it is digitized again.


So the bottom line is that this is a digital production, but definitely with elements of analogue equipment which certainly sets its color on the result.”

 

[PeterA]

Obviously these are never going to be the same recording, so I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. In general I find analog playback more natural, more believable and achieving of a greater suspension of disbelief.



If I have enough listening time to listen to all or most of a reel of tape then:

-- if I have an analog title on tape I play the tape;

-- if I have an analog title on vinyl but not tape I play the vinyl; and

-- if I don't have an analog title on tape or vinyl I play it on digital.

Thank you. I was trying to determine whether or not you have a preference in general between the formats, or if you are basically agnostic. Your statement in bold clarifies it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hi Ron, this is what Vidar Lunden, the man behind Liberty told me about the album. (Google translated from norwegian to english)

“After all, I did most of the recordings for/on Anette's "Liberty" album. It is possible that Øystein Sevåg made some arrangements in his home studio afterwards, and he mixed the album. Øystein is an extreme pedometer, and is fantastically skilled...and not least very pleasant and fun to work with!

My studio at the time was probably what we can call a digital studio. I did all the recordings in ProTools. I used a number of external analogue preamps, and microphones are, after all, analogue by nature...before the signals are digitized either in pre-amps or when they are converted digitally in ProTools.

I mean to believe that Øystein also mixed "in the box", i.e. in ProTools, without going the route of an analogue or digital mixer.

During the mastering with Morten Lund, the signal will probably also go through what you would call analog signal processing, before it is digitized again.


So the bottom line is that this is a digital production, but definitely with elements of analogue equipment which certainly sets its color on the result.”

Thank you. I would characterize this as "digital."

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you. I was trying to determine whether or not you have a preference in general between the formats, or if you are basically agnostic. Your statement in bold clarifies it.

Philosophically and ideologically and theoretically I believe in analog recording and analog playback. Other than convenience for mass distribution and convenience for playback if one's goal is maximizing emotional engagement to music reproduction I see no benefit in digitizing an analog musical signal.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Do you prefer the sound of an analog recording on vinyl or the sound of a digital recording on your digital playback? Or are they close enough that you simply pick out what you wanna listen to and go with that format?

I think this is Mike Lavigne’s approach. He listens to whatever music he wants to listen to in its native format as the driver and it appears that he ends up listening to Digital about 80% of the time. Do you do the same?

Peter, i do talk about trying to identify and listen to the most native source of any recording, when i can. it's one reason i have multiple formats. i find that experientially it makes a difference and is a consistent thing that continues to deliver.

as far as digital/vinyl/tape of the same recording; the way i approach that when by myself mostly has to do when i acquire an Lp then it's my habit to sample the digital file to determine where the two compare just for my own feel to file in my mind. when i have visitors then lots of times they ask me to play the digital or vinyl to compare. that pretty much goes very quickly.

but my main focus with the 'native' idea is between particular digital files. not every file has the 'version' choice. so that's a quick thing i look for. when i can select 'versions' i mostly do that and sometimes there is one in my personal file library, or there are both Quboz and Tidal choices of various resolutions. which can lead to maybe a dive into google.

some years ago when i was very pro-dsd and started to listen to lots of files, prior to doing much streaming, i found that most of the time, that the high rez PCM files were superior to the dsd files, due to the fact that the dsd was mostly sourced from the PCM. so after seeing many of my references upended by learning this, i got to be very conscious of finding the native file. even that sometimes the source was redbook, but it was either up-sampled to higher PCM or dsd, the source was always better. and now with streaming this experience has carried through. the more i learn, the stronger my feelings about it.

when comparing vinyl and digital and trying to figure stuff out, there are simply too many variables to predict 100% how it goes, including playback hardware quality. at least right now, i do have very tip top sources for each format. sometimes the vinyl, in spite of not being native, just takes you further and compliments the music more. case by case is different. sometimes they are very close.

 

[Ron Resnick]

sometimes the vinyl, in spite of not being native, just takes you further and compliments the music more. case by case is different. sometimes they are very close.

+1

 

[PeterA]

Peter, i do talk about trying to identify and listen to the most native source of any recording, when i can. it's one reason i have multiple formats. i find that experientially it makes a difference and is a consistent thing that continues to deliver.

as far as digital/vinyl/tape of the same recording; the way i approach that when by myself mostly has to do when i acquire an Lp then it's my habit to sample the digital file to determine where the two compare just for my own feel to file in my mind. when i have visitors then lots of times they ask me to play the digital or vinyl to compare. that pretty much goes very quickly.

but my main focus with the 'native' idea is between particular digital files. not every file has the 'version' choice. so that's a quick thing i look for. when i can select 'versions' i mostly do that and sometimes there is one in my personal file library, or there are both Quboz and Tidal choices of various resolutions. which can lead to maybe a dive into google.

some years ago when i was very pro-dsd and started to listen to lots of files, prior to doing much streaming, i found that most of the time, that the high rez PCM files were superior to the dsd files, due to the fact that the dsd was mostly sourced from the PCM. so after seeing many of my references upended by learning this, i got to be very conscious of finding the native file. even that sometimes the source was redbook, but it was either up-sampled to higher PCM or dsd, the source was always better. and now with streaming this experience has carried through. the more i learn, the stronger my feelings about it.

when comparing vinyl and digital and trying to figure stuff out, there are simply too many variables to predict 100% how it goes, including playback hardware quality. at least right now, i do have very tip top sources for each format. sometimes the vinyl, in spite of not being native, just takes you further and compliments the music more. case by case is different. sometimes they are very close.

Yes, Mike, you have described this well in previous writings. Despite your preference for the analog format, the majority of your listening seems to be digital.

I simply mentioned you because you have written a lot about this, and Ron‘s post sounded a lot like your writing deferring to native format.

 

[KeithR]

Thank you for your thoughts.

I like getting all sorts of opinions, because sometimes they help me corroborate or refute what I am hearing. I don't see the tangents you are describing.

Perhaps you have a mistaken impression that I take some action or make some change as soon as anybody gives me his opinion on something; that I am constantly changing things around in a helter skelter way. That's not what's going on. I'm the only cook in this particular kitchen.

I have always said that glass windows or glass walls are the worst thing you can have in a listening room other than plutonium. In this particular case a professional recording engineer who has set up recording studios and mastering studios heard an issue of smearing of high frequencies I did not hear. The acoustic panels between the Hunter Douglas and the glass walls largely solve this smearing according to the recording engineer. A mutual friend also reported hearing an improvement when the panels were installed.

Now that the panels are installed between the Hunter Douglas and the glass walls I think the high frequencies sound a little bit more delicate.

Art Noxon of Acoustic Sciences Corporation a couple of years ago expressed concern about the glass walls.

Altogether this was more than enough to make an executive decision to place the acoustic panels against the glass walls. It takes less than 10 minutes to put all of the panels in, or to take all of the panels out.

I don't view this as a tangent. I view this as a mechanical remedy to the discovery of a mechanical problem. No matter where the speakers wind up being finally positioned the smearing of high frequencies due to immovable walls of glass is a problem in need of a remedy.

Let's call a a spade a spade- your room is very difficult due to its shape. When I was there, it was on the cusp of being overdamped and since then you've put up loads of treatment (David Karmeli actually found it overdamped while empty!). The room had a massive node at 60 hz, which is not something you can easily treat away and required a lot of speaker placement experimentation that you were hesitant to do because they weighed a lot. (I would be remiss to forget that the Gryphon brain trust came over and floundered on that front as well). The room notably doesn't include any diffusion (your records/tapes are in another room, the wood paneling is flat, etc.)

So where has it gone since. Well, covering your room in panels, AVAs, "Resnick tube traps" and other stuff isn't likely to solve the problem coherently, and I really don't bow to any recording engineer in designing 2-channel audio rooms. JR, another expert, brought out a bunch of laptop programs and measurements, but seemed to have not been successful as the Gyphons have suddenly disappeared although you haven't taken out the woofers (which of course are affecting your sonics). As I recall he also ordered the use of carpet tiles and the upper side walls toward the ceiling. I would think replacing the blinds behind you would have been a pretty easy test for all those microphones.

Your original plan had 1 designer in Bonnie but now it's a cadre of Karmeli, Don, JR, the guy who recommended the AVAs, Mr. Recording Engineer, and Art Noxon (who has awful sounding rooms, sorry). In short, a hodge podge of non-congruous room treatment options and materials. This entire "OMG i have (treated) glass windows 8' behind the listening chair that still may be doing something bad" just sums up the predicament.

I've mentioned since break-in (and on this thread almost 18 months ago), I'd hire Stirling Trayle or Gary Kuo to setup your speakers as a 4 column speaker is very complicated, it would take the room as much out of the equation done correctly, and minimize the treatment required. Otherwise, you are just moving from one perceived problem to another. That is as holistic listening isn't really happening. Alternatively you can revert to Bonnie or someone else to come up with an entire room plan.

But hey, its your room man. You deserve to get SOTA from that significant gear investment, but you haven't arrived yet.

 

[Argonaut]

(David Karmeli actually found it overdamped while empty!).

HaaaaaaHaaaaaaaa !

 

[cjfrbw]

I suspect that Ron likes his Clarysis speakers, but restrains enthusiasm due to the dealer hat, thus the eclipsing of the Pendragon soap opera woes. I seriously doubt that the room sucks as bad as some might indicate, and planars are different integrators compared to more directional horns or boxes.

 

[PeterA]

Let's call a a spade a spade- your room is very difficult due to its shape. When I was there, it was on the cusp of being overdamped and since then you've put up loads of treatment (David Karmeli actually found it overdamped while empty!). The room had a massive node at 60 hz, which is not something you can easily treat away and required a lot of speaker placement experimentation that you were hesitant to do because they weighed a lot. (I would be remiss to forget that the Gryphon brain trust came over and floundered on that front as well). The room notably doesn't include any diffusion (your records/tapes are in another room, the wood paneling is flat, etc.)

So where has it gone since. Well, covering your room in panels, AVAs, "Resnick tube traps" and other stuff isn't likely to solve the problem coherently, and I really don't bow to any recording engineer in designing 2-channel audio rooms. JR, another expert, brought out a bunch of laptop programs and measurements, but seemed to have not been successful as the Gyphons have suddenly disappeared although you haven't taken out the woofers (which of course are affecting your sonics). As I recall he also ordered the use of carpet tiles and the upper side walls toward the ceiling. I would think replacing the blinds behind you would have been a pretty easy test for all those microphones.

Your original plan had 1 designer in Bonnie but now it's a cadre of Karmeli, Don, JR, the guy who recommended the AVAs, Mr. Recording Engineer, and Art Noxon (who has awful sounding rooms, sorry). In short, a hodge podge of non-congruous room treatment options and materials. This entire "OMG i have (treated) glass windows 8' behind the listening chair that still may be doing something bad" just sums up the predicament.

I've mentioned since break-in (and on this thread almost 18 months ago), I'd hire Stirling Trayle or Gary Kuo to setup your speakers as a 4 column speaker is very complicated, it would take the room as much out of the equation done correctly, and minimize the treatment required. Otherwise, you are just moving from one perceived problem to another. That is as holistic listening isn't really happening. Alternatively you can revert to Bonnie or someone else to come up with an entire room plan.

But hey, its your room man. You deserve to get SOTA from that significant gear investment, but you haven't arrived yet.

That’s a good summary, Keith. Ron has certainly solicited lots of opinions on what to do. He has written that he likes to get lots of opinions from experts and friends, and then pick and choose based on his own ideas what to do. He has told me privately and written publicly that he is very happy with the sound of his system. And he places it in the second tier of top five systems which is impressive given all the systems he has heard, and all the shows he has attended.

I was quite surprised when he cancelled the AS2000 and then replaced the Pendragons. Now he is expanding his digital and trying different electronics. The room certainly seems challenging, but it also seems as though he has not settled on the system.

 

[Ron Resnick]

(David Karmeli actually found it overdamped while empty!).

You would have to ask David about that. At that point in time the floor was shiny urethane over concrete. The room sounded to me close to like a gymnasium. There was obvious slap echo. I could not reconcile David's comment ("if anything slightly over-damped") to what I was hearing.

Do you remember when David, I think, posted a video of a drummer playing on a drum kit in a room very heavily damped with acoustic absorption panels? Over the course of the video the absorption panels gradually are removed until the room is completely emptied of absorption panels, leaving only the drummer and the drum kit.

If I remember correctly David liked the sound best with all of the absorption panels removed. In contrast I thought it sounded at that point like total cacaphony and unlistenable.

David's listening room sounds great -- nothing like my room sounded when it was empty when he made that comment. I perceive David's listening room as very normal and natural sounding, and maybe slightly more damped than my listening room.

Sound preferences are subjective.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Let's call a a spade a spade- your room is very difficult due to its shape.

Personally, I would not characterize it as "very difficult." It's 25 feet long, 20 feet wide, with a 9 foot ceiling. I don't think we normally would consider that to be a very difficult room due to its shape.

Then, two-thirds of the ceiling elevates to a height of 14 feet tall. I personally like high ceilings in listening rooms.

Finally, one-third of the right side wall side is open and vents into a space 25 feet long, 14 feet wide and 14 feet tall. Of course people who like listening rooms to be hermetically sealed with no avenue for bass waves to escape would not like this adjacent room. Maybe this adjacent room helps bass waves to escape and actually reduces standing waves? I don't know.

 

[tima]

You would have to ask David about that. At that point in time the floor was shiny urethane over concrete. The room sounded to me close to like a gymnasium. There was obvious slap echo. I could not reconcile David's comment to what I was hearing.

Do you remember when David, I think, posted a video of a drummer playing on a drum kit in a room very heavily damped with acoustic absorption panels? Over the course of the video the absorption panels gradually are removed until the room is completely emptied of absorption panels, leaving only the drummer and the drum kit.

If I remember correctly David liked the sound best with all of the absorption panels removed. In contrast I thought it sounded at that point like total cacaphony and unlistenable.

Sound preferences are subjective.

Easy to divert to ddk. He lives in several heads rent free and is always a good coin to arouse the pointy bleaters.
But be that as it may.

Sound preferences are subjective yet some systems/rooms sound better than others. I thought Keith's point was that your room shape is difficult as witnessed by the many experts who have tried to 'fix' it and the many treatments you have tried. The way it reads thus far suggests there are challenges. Along with the many different acoustic treatments there appears to be a regular changing of equipment: speakers, electronics, sources. An alternative explanation to Keith's -- random speculation on my part -- is that your subjective preferences keep changing because your system/room keeps changing -or- you haven't quite established a stable reference to serve as the target against which change is directed and assessed. Only you know.

Nontheless, if you are happy doing what you're doing, isn't that what matters?

 

[bonzo75]

Ron’s room is quite good and easy to have a great system in. Problem is trying to stick too much to a theoretical ideal (self imposed theory), masala of electronics and experts, and inability to choose listening points (right LPs with the right music for audition) that help one judge if set up is right or wrong. This leads to a choice of wrong equipment/equipment matches

All the other set up activities that have happened have been fun and nice to tick off as a hobby activity and am sure he has enjoyed it and enriched his life but his set up has been going sideways

 

[adyc]

Ron’s room is quite good and easy to have a great system in. Problem is trying to stick too much to a theoretical ideal (self imposed theory), masala of electronics and experts, and inability to choose listening points (right LPs with the right music for audition) that help one judge if set up is right or wrong. This leads to a choice of wrong equipment/equipment matches

All the other set up activities that have happened have been fun and nice to tick off as a hobby activity and am sure he has enjoyed it and enriched his life but his set up has been going sideways

You should visit him to help him out.

 

[bonzo75]

You should visit him to help him out.

He will have to change gear, his current equipment is not well suited to play back my audition music, so there won’t be much point.

 

[tima]

He will have to change gear, his current equipment is not well suited to play back my audition music, so there won’t be much point.

??? Change his equipment to play your music? And if it passed your audition would it then meet his preferences too?

 

[bonzo75]

??? Change his equipment to play your music? And if it passed your audition would it then meet his preferences too?

Yes - but vice versa won't work