Ron’s New System

[microstrip]

Is the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space really a myth? I just attended a string Quartet the other day, and I felt as though I was in reality.

I am addressing the audiophile myth, not your quartet.

I don’t think anyone thinks his system presents the music on his recordings in his collection as sounding the same as real music. I have never met anyone who has been brainwashed to think that. And many have reached a point where they no longer search realizing full well that their systems could give them a more life like listening experience.

I addressed the final objective, not what people thing about their current systems.

I am curious to learn how your system sounds better than real. Better how?

Sounds better (improved) simply, not sounds better than real.

 

[hopkins]

And how is having live unamplified music as a reference or guide to judge the quality of a system somehow now elitist? I guess some can be offended by anything these days.

Now I'm being "woke"? Is that the accusation?

This argument started with someone explaining that some audiophiles would prefer listening to their stereo rather than going to the concert (I have no idea how that came about...). Perhaps they would prefer going to the concert rather than listening to your stereo (or mine)

How can a system be described as a "solution" if the owner is confused and dissatisfied? A solution to what exactly? Ron hatched a system after a long hiatus, and he continues to search for a system that satisfies him. "Ron's New System" is a thread about a quest, and so it continues.

No comment needed, you are just nitpicking.

 

[Holmz]

We won't know until Ron gets a new preamp (or uses his current preamp), places it within 3 meters of the amplifiers and plugs it directly into the amps, bypassing any other additional circuitry .

He could move the existing preamp to within the 10’ of the amps.
We would know more then, than we would with also switching the preamp.
The in second scenario the preamp and the cable are both swapped out.
It is often easier to just swap out one thing at a time, to get a better understanding of what’s what.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Sounds better (improved) simply, not sounds better than real.

agree. i mostly prefer what i hear listening and being in my system to being there and listening to live music. but it's not as real as live music. there are lots of 'real' sounds that are not pleasing. some of which is music. but a live event is......an......event. and there are other people there, which can be good or great or not good.

my first thought at a concert of any kind is my hearing and whether i need to protect it. since i was very young. i was never one to self medicate, so maybe that is why.

i also mostly prefer to watch sports on TV in my 'dedicated sports place' to going to a live game. the best part of going to a game is the people i go with and the time i spend with them. and the feeling of being with the crowd at the good moments.

just how i see it. YMMV.

 

[Ron Resnick]

In any event , I think the reasons Ron's system is having issues with brightness with his new Mastersound PFF 100 amps are: incompatibility of the Hegel's preamp

What is your hypothesis here as to incompatibility?

rather long (47 feet) interconnects into an additional passive circuitry that for sure will introduce "parasitic" distortions.

The long interconnects are a weight on each amplifier. Please recall that the room + system has no brightness issue when using Jadis.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree some, perhaps many, are "shooting for some type of "fantasy" sound". Too often they cannot describe what that is and keep "shooting" by running through different components and system configurations. There is no reference for fantasy sound, no invariable set of goals, only what seems pleasing on any given day or some vague notion of what music should sound like. "Maybe if I change cables or get a different amplifier I can reduce the brightness (or whatever) -- I am sceptical of those who think they can 'reason' their way to audio happiness in the absence of a well described reference -- they are more likely to use the 'stumble-upon' method of discovering what they like -- at least for today -- it is what keeps audiophilia churning.

I don't think a lot of people really want "the absolute sound" that is true to the original. I could have a live string quartet playing in my listening room and I think if I invited groups of listeners most people would say it sounds too bright and that the strings aren't silky enough or its too (pick your favorite adjective). A lot are shooting for some type of "fantasy" sound.

Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want warm, lush etc. (What I would call blurry) you can't complain about the lack of resolution and transparency. Pick a lane.

I don't think it's this perplexing, gentlemen.

Understanding at Step 1 that different audiophiles consciously or subconsciously have different high-end audio objectives -- see my usual list of four primary possible objectives -- blows away the cloud of puzzlement.

 

[Kingrex]

i only want warm and lush when the musical content is warm and lush. we especially want to avoid warm and lush as any sort of overlay or sameness. no smoothing or rounding. we do want transparent and resolving, but also full bodied, liquid and continuous and not grainy or bleached.

I experienced exactly this yesterday. I put my SET 845 in and it is lush. Rounded. Very pleasant. But the PP KT88 (120 now) is much faster, vibrant, dynamic and natual . You feel the bass hit with rhe KT88. With the 845, is a soft lanket of bass. The PP KT88 It ust way better. You notice the very apparent losses with the SET845.

Even if the crossover was vastly simplified the PP would remain that much more dynamic and percussive over the SET. Maybe one could argue, a horn or something as such is so dynamic, your trying to tame it with a softer amp. That may be true. I don't know. I only hear people say its important to match the amp to the load.

 

[bonzo75]

I don't think it's this perplexing, gentlemen.

Understanding at Step 1 that different audiophiles consciously or subconsciously have different high-end audio objectives -- see my usual list of four primary possible objectives -- and the smoke of puzzlement is blown away.

That’s not the point sbnx is making. The point he is making in that post (given the context of the discussion where he posted it) is those who want the recording to be reproduced won’t get it with warm lush sound of valves and they won’t get an absolute sound and his sound (while bright to some) is true to recording

 

[Kingrex]

I agree. I don't think a lot of people really want "the absolute sound" that is true to the original. I could have a live string quartet playing in my listening room and I think if I invited groups of listeners most people would say it sounds too bright and that the strings aren't silky enough or its too (pick your favorite adjective). A lot are shooting for some type of "fantasy" sound.

Totally disagree. I was just at a house listening to a Daniel Hertz setup. The owner is pretty good with a violin. He stood in front of us and played. It was AMAZING. I would not say you can't overpower a room with live musicians. My godness, many people overpower the room with their stereo playing too loud.

If one were to say the real violin played in front of us was bright and they wanted to gloss it over. Well, I would say, don't waste your money on a good stereo.

 

[sbnx]

I experienced exactly this yesterday. I put my SET 845 in and it is lush. Rounded. Very pleasant. But the PP KT88 (120 now) is much faster, vibrant, dynamic and natual . You feel the bass hit with rhe KT88. With the 845, is a soft lanket of bass. The PP KT88 It ust way better. You notice the very apparent losses with the SET845.

Even if the crossover was vastly simplified the PP would remain that much more dynamic and percussive over the SET. Maybe one could argue, a horn or something as such is so dynamic, your trying to tame it with a softer amp. That may be true. I don't know. I only hear people say its important to match the amp to the load.

Move the speakers when you use the SET 845 and you can get much of the bass to return. Of course the 845 will not sound completely like the PP KT88 but it can be improved upon.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I experienced exactly this yesterday. I put my SET 845 in and it is lush. Rounded. Very pleasant. But the PP KT88 (120 now) is much faster, vibrant, dynamic and natual . You feel the bass hit with rhe KT88. With the 845, is a soft lanket of bass. The PP KT88 It ust way better. You notice the very apparent losses with the SET845.

Even if the crossover was vastly simplified the PP would remain that much more dynamic and percussive over the SET. Maybe one could argue, a horn or something as such is so dynamic, your trying to tame it with a softer amp. That may be true. I don't know. I only hear people say its important to match the amp to the load.

to me the question is what connects you to the music? brings you back? is immersive and communicates the message and content of the music. too much truth might push us away from extended listening. but too many artifacts might also insulate us from the flow and feeling and presence and realism of the music.

find your own balance. i think guided by that feeling of realism and suspension of disbelief that get's us excited. if warm and lush and smoothed sucks you in and makes you smile then go for it. forget what anyone else thinks.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I was just at a house listening to a Daniel Hertz setup. (...)

Did this Daniel Hertz system include the C-Wave technology? Did you enjoy the system?

 

[Ron Resnick]

That’s not the point sbnx is making. The point he is making in that post (given the context of the discussion where he posted it) is those who want the recording to be reproduced won’t get it with warm lush sound of valves and they won’t get an absolute sound and his sound (while bright to some) is true to recording

Thank you for clarifying.

But I look at it through a different prism. I look at it through the prism of my high-end audio objectives typology.

Suggesting that somebody wants a "warm lush sound" may reflect a misunderstanding of the motivation. A "warm lush sound" is not on my objectives list.

Someone whose objective is "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile" may indeed be aiming deliberately and conscientiously for a warm lush sound.

Someone whose objective is "recreate the sound of an original musical event" will not have a warm lush sound as a deliberate and conscientious objective. But it may very well be the case that that type of sound manifests the sonic cues which for that particular audiophile "re-create the sound of an original musical event."

Todd's objective, I believe, is to "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

With different possible audiophile objectives it is no wonder that hobbyist stereo systems wind up sounding so different.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The owner is pretty good with a violin. He stood in front of us and played. It was AMAZING. I would not say you can't overpower a room with live musicians. (...)

IMO you can't compare a single person playing the violin with with a quartet.

Anyway, chamber musicians adapt their style to the room where they are playing - give them a good space and they will play much more powerfully. And living rooms differ a lot - my childhood large house was an old stone stone walls building with 12 feet ceilings and solid wood floors with a living room that probably could easily accept an octet!

Probably everyone is right in this subject.

 

[Ron Resnick]

too much truth might push us away from extended listening

too many artifacts might also insulate us from the flow and feeling and presence and realism of the music.

find your own balance.

The indifference curve concept discussed on the other thread is a graphical manifestation of precisely this balance Mike refers to.

 

[bonzo75]

Thank you for clarifying.

But I look at it through a different prism. I look at it through the prism of my high-end audio objectives typology.

Suggesting that somebody wants a "warm lush sound" may reflect a misunderstanding of the motivation. A "warm lush sound" is not on my objectives list.

Someone whose objective is "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile" may indeed be aiming deliberately and conscientiously for a warm lush sound.

Someone whose objective is "recreate the sound of an original musical event" will not have a warm lush sound as a deliberate and conscientious objective. But it may very well be the case that that type of sound manifests the sonic cues which for that particular audiophile "re-create the sound of an original musical event."

Todd's objective, I believe, is to "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

With different possible audiophile objectives it is no wonder that hobbyist stereo systems wind up sounding so different.

Yes but Todd’s point was that someone who has objective to reproduce the source will not get it and instead get a warm lush sound which might not be their objective, while he is getting his approach with his gear. Not sure why you are twisting that

 

[microstrip]

(...) Todd's objective, I believe, is to "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played." (...)

Well, Todd will probably answer, but I don't think so. As most audiophiles, he wants to avoid some colorations, but accepts and enjoys others.

 

[Holmz]

Thank you for clarifying.

But I look at it through a different prism. I look at it through the prism of my high-end audio objectives typology.

Suggesting that somebody wants a "warm lush sound" may reflect a misunderstanding of the motivation. A "warm lush sound" is not on my objectives list.

Someone whose objective is "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile" may indeed be aiming deliberately and conscientiously for a warm lush sound.

Someone whose objective is "recreate the sound of an original musical event" will not have a warm lush sound as a deliberate and conscientious objective. But it may very well be the case that that type of sound manifests the sonic cues which for that particular audiophile "re-create the sound of an original musical event."

Todd's objective, I believe, is to "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

With different possible audiophile objectives it is no wonder that hobbyist stereo systems wind up sounding so different.

How many people start out with a list of objectives?
I suppose later they might have some. But the term objectives is in and of itself a bit funny given that the hobby is some subjective and based in emotion.

I don't think it's this perplexing, gentlemen.

Understanding at Step 1 that different audiophiles consciously or subconsciously have different high-end audio objectives -- see my usual list of four primary possible objectives -- blows away the cloud of puzzlement.

Can you please point me to the list?

I went to page 1, expecting it there, and the only objective I could implicitly noodle out… was to retain a working spine looking at the massive crates.

 

[microstrip]

(...) too much truth might push us away from extended listening.(...)

What is truth? The only real truth in stereo is the main objective of sound reproduction - listener enjoyment. Listeners differ enough to preclude an universal truth - at best we can have some "local" truths , such as accuracy (freedom of artifacts) or acceptance of some "benign" forms of distortion and noise. BTW, just addressing electronics and sources, speakers are a completely different subject.

but too many artifacts might also insulate us from the flow and feeling and presence and realism of the music.

Are you addressing objective or subjective artifacts?

find your own balance. i think guided by that feeling of realism and suspension of disbelief that get's us excited. if warm and lush and smoothed sucks you in and makes you smile then go for it. forget what anyone else thinks.

Yes, our particular "feeling of realism" surely helps suspension of disbelief.

 

[Kingrex]

Did this Daniel Hertz system include the C-Wave technology? Did you enjoy the system?

Full DH. But, the speakers only had 5 or 6 hours on them. And he just put them in the room. We could hear the potential. The system has a ways to go. I will go back when ts more mature.
Tough room too. Lots of glass. Thin space, then opens to a large space. Many reflections. The side wall is about 3 feet from the side of the speaker.