Ron’s New System

[PeterA]

i think "resolution" (highly resolving), correct tonal balance, and realism are not interchangeable terms. they relate parts of the musical aspects of the sound.

you can have high resolution, yet lack tonal balance or realism. these things can vary from one reproduction experience to the next one. or even vary with live music experiences. although live experiences are by definition 'real'. but some live experiences are less able to be easily consumed than other live experiences. maybe also varying with the experience of the listener. not every mind processes information equally.

just my viewpoint.

i don't agree there is 'correct' and 'incorrect' as absolutes. but i could see how others view it differently. or have a particular mind set where it does become a binary environment. all the way on or off. a state of mind. expectations met or not.

how does one improve things if there are not gradations of progress? or even ways to view these different parts of progress?

It’s not about absolutes for me either. There are different degrees of resolution just as there are steps up the natural sound ladder and sometimes simply different not better presentations. Different violins played be different masters in different halls sound different. I do want to distinguish between the four strings in a quartet.

And there is a point below which things don’t sound right. I do not know if this means that we agree or disagree. It really does not matter.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

We established both publicly and privately several years ago that you and I simply have irreconcilable definitions of "resolution." See https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/what-do-we-mean-by-resolution.33785/

Yes. You started that thread with a dictionary definition and then asked how the readers define the term “resolution” in terms of audio.

I answered your question with this post:

“Ron, to me resolution means information. Greater resolution means greater amounts of information. Natural resolution means information presented naturally. The more natural resolution that a system can present, the more listening to the system reminds us of listening to real music.”

I am sorry this seems irreconcilable. Perhaps we should move on.

 

[bonzo75]

Kedar, you're going to hate this comment, but I am beginning to wonder if the linear-tracking tonearms are better able than pivoting tonearms to mimic the sense of relaxed-ness I hear consistently from tape.

I forgot to reply to this. I don’t generalise on LT arms. I did not find that much commonality. I like vyger. I like heavy pivoted arms that can manage Dava. Even outside Dava if not for vyger, I would have gone pivot. I think I like Mike’s FCL (I would need to isolate it more but I got the liquid nuanced impression I like with vyger). And I heard vyger sound both relaxed and not, depending on if you get air pressure right or not.

So anything good has to be on the borderline. Exciting yet doesn’t get us on edge. A bit more it gets edgy. A bit less boring. If it was just one or the other hifi would have been easy

what vyger and Bergmann both did brilliantly with red sparrow is that the highs were the most distortion free that I have heard, purity with nuance, violin was sublime,. Maybe you find that relaxing because you are sensitive to highs. Bergmann had less weight and I just did not like it with other carts as it was wimpy. Dava on pivots does a very different thing completely, which is why Jeroen has added the ikeda arm board to his vyger.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Several people have asked when my Vintage Audio Specialties AS-2000 is arriving. I have not answered those questions.

I love the AS-2000. I liked best the sound of the AS-1000 when I visited David Karmeli several years ago, and compared it directly to his other reference turntables. I was literally the first person to order an AS-2000, and kick off the extremely limited production run.

I spent four days over New Year's Eve listening to the AS-2000 at David's. The sound quality is amazing. Everything about the turntable looks, feels and operates at pure Rolls-Royce quality level. The machining and finishing quality of the stainless steel is stunning. The Nothing stands are made the exact same way.

However, given what transpired on WBF and personally between David and myself we have mutually agreed to walk away from my purchase.

This creates an opportunity for someone to purchase the very last AS-2000, with matching all stainless steel custom Nothing stands. Anyone interested should contact David at vas_ut@icloud.com

 

[Scott Naylor]

Sigh.

Thanks for the update, Ron. I’m sorry for any distress you were subjected to sorting out that situation.
Hopefully severing ties with the ASS-2000 will prove over time to be the best long-term solution.

I’m confident you will find an alternative vinyl replay system that will be an even greater source of enjoyment, both in practical everyday use and in increased musical insight and understanding. Looking forward to reading your experiences going forward and wish you the very best in the undertaking!

 

[tima]

We established both publicly and privately several years ago that you and I simply have irreconcilable definitions of "resolution." See https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/what-do-we-mean-by-resolution.33785/

As a public service (heh) I read that thread again and inform that out of its 14 pages one can stop reading at the end of page 7 where bonzo starts talking about taking milk with coffee. There are a few bits of humor in the latter pages but overall the issue does not resolve.

It is fascinating there is so little agreement over the term 'resolution.' That leads me to believe that its continued use will continue failing to enable communication much less agreement, because it has so many meanings or interpretations for so many different people. I am likewise convinced that audiophiles will keep on using the word.

 

[XV-1]

Ron, plenty of other expensive turntables to choose from . You just need to tell us what one
- SAT
- Esoteric
- Nagra
- OMA
- Wilson Benesch
- Acoustical Systems
- Thorens
- Tech Das
- Crosley

 

[morricab]

Ron, plenty of other expensive turntables to choose from . You just need to tell us what one
- SAT
- Esoteric
- Nagra
- OMA
- Wilson Benesch
- Acoustical Systems
- Thorens
- Tech Das
- Crosley

Or, an Exclusive P3…

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is fascinating there is so little agreement over the term 'resolution.'

I think the two main poles are my definition and Peter's definition, no?

(I always thought "resolution" would be one of the easier terms to define!)

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, plenty of other expensive turntables to choose from . You just need to tell us what one
- SAT
- Esoteric
- Nagra
- OMA
- Wilson Benesch
- Acoustical Systems
- Thorens
- Tech Das
- Crosley

 

[pjwd]

Zdx

Ron, plenty of other expensive turntables to choose from . You just need to tell us what one
- SAT
- Esoteric
- Nagra
- OMA
- Wilson Benesch
- Acoustical Systems
- Thorens
- Tech Das
- Crosley

What .. no dohmann helix !

 

[tima]

I think the two main poles are my definition and Peter's definition, no?

(I always thought "resolution" would be one of the easier terms to define!)

I think there is a broader divide that is reflected in those differences as well as other areas. We might call them the top-down perspective and the bottom-up perspective, or perhaps the Gestaltists and the Analysts or Holistics and Categorists. This divide does not map entirely with the Naturalist/Synthesist divide on basis of preference but I suspect some continuity in membership between the groups.

The top-down perspective starts with experiencing music as a whole and and is somewhat reluctant to fully embrace describing the experience of it in parts or pieces. Why? Because after having done so the elements never fully reconsttitute the whole. In the case at hand Peter talks about resolution as information -- a broad term that goes beyond such things as the finiteness of detail and the quantum of resolution. In the concert hall, the question is asked "am I experiencing attributes or properties -- how best can I describe what I am experiencing?"

The bottom-up perspective breaks the music experience into constituent elements, organizing its listening into categories of distinct characteristics or 'aspects' of sound. Such as your "resolution, tonal balance and transparency are discrete attributes" or Lavigne's "resolution (highly resolving), correct tonal balance, and realism are not interchangeable terms." Having defined the distinct characteristics there is a need to keep them distinct. There is less or no concern that upon completion of the analysis the parts fit neatly together to yield the whole experience. It easier to move the boxes around with words and suited for forum discussion.

It is tempting here to make a case for one or the other, but I'll refrain. I've given the nit-pickers plenty to chew on.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Zdx
What .. no dohmann helix !

Or Vyger?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Or Vyger?

Or Kuzma? Or Brinkmann? Or Bergmann?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Probably.

I think there is a broader divide that is reflected in those differences as well as other areas. We might call them the top-down perspective and the bottom-up perspective, or perhaps the Gestaltists and the Analysts or Holistics and Categorists. This divide does not map entirely with the Naturalist/Synthesist divide on basis of preference but I suspect some continuity in membership between the groups.

The top-down perspective starts with experiencing music as a whole and and is somewhat reluctant to fully embrace describing the experience of it in parts or pieces. Why? Because after having done so the elements never fully reconsttitute the whole. In the case at hand Peter talks about resolution as information -- a broad term that goes beyond such things as the finiteness of detail and the quantum of resolution. In the concert hall, the question is asked "am I experiencing attributes or properties -- how best can I describe what I am experiencing?"

The bottom-up perspective breaks the music experience into constituent elements, organizing its listening into categories of distinct characteristics or 'aspects' of sound. Such as your "resolution, tonal balance and transparency are discrete attributes" or Lavigne's "resolution (highly resolving), correct tonal balance, and realism are not interchangeable terms." Having defined the distinct characteristics there is a need to keep them distinct. There is less or no concern that upon completion of the analysis the parts fit neatly together to yield the whole experience. It easier to move the boxes around with words and suited for forum discussion.

It is tempting here to make a case for one or the other, but I'll refrain. I've given the nit-pickers plenty to chew on.

I think this is a very thoughtful dissection of the issue.

 

[tima]

Or Vyger?

That's my startrek movie question -- Nasa probe Voyager 6.

 

[bonzo75]

There is less or no concern that upon completion of the analysis the parts fit neatly together to yield the whole experience.

Why there is a word for that too

 

[Johan K]

Zdx
What .. no dohmann helix !

Dohmann is the goody goody?!

 

[the sound of Tao]

Probably.

I think there is a broader divide that is reflected in those differences as well as other areas. We might call them the top-down perspective and the bottom-up perspective, or perhaps the Gestaltists and the Analysts or Holistics and Categorists. This divide does not map entirely with the Naturalist/Synthesist divide on basis of preference but I suspect some continuity in membership between the groups.

The top-down perspective starts with experiencing music as a whole and and is somewhat reluctant to fully embrace describing the experience of it in parts or pieces. Why? Because after having done so the elements never fully reconsttitute the whole.

Tim I always find your process fabulously analytical… you are an old school parser par excellence.

I find the natural/artificial poles are not at all directly related to either being whole or fragmented but then how did the parts end up underneath the whole… surely they are on the inside of it… and analysis is most often about breaking down the whole into parts whereas synthesis is then about amalgamating parts back to some whole but ultimately the totality of the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts in any half decent gestalt.

PS not nit picking, just not agreeing.

 

[bonzo75]

If we all said I like this better and that not, there won't be much conversation and a need for a forum. Same with sports. This guy won us the match, that guy didn't. We analyse stats, discuss nuances of the game, some objective, some subjective.

I am interested in communicating in a way the reader intuitively understands what I am saying...where this is not possible some explanation is required to make him understand easily.

Resolution also meaning transparency, tonal balance, etc complicates it entirely and becomes a bucket term for everything. It can be used as a shortcut...this system had higher resolution across the board...and left at that, or you can get into more detail. Anyway when we write in more detail we clearly start with spelling out things at a higher level (as simple as this was my preferred component), then get into more detail, write about weaknesses on the lesser liked component (e.g. that lacked weight), and further use cello, violin, orchestra, etc descriptions to further clarify. The committed ones further use videos to add to the words.

Therefore, after all this, just using resolution as a blanket term to me makes no more sense than simply saying I preferred A over B on all aspects. While valid, it reduces detail and transparency in the whole description process. Unless a video showing the differences is added, as that reduces the need for verbosity.