Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
The new Bergmann with stainless steel platter, which was just introduced at Munich, looks interesting, and relatively affordable ( 13 or 14 k).
if you had said that resolution is like clearly seeing the number of leaves on a tree or details of the feathers on a bird, then I would understand your analogy to distinguishing between different voices in a choir. But you did not do that. You brought up pixel count in terms of visual resolution. I’d like to know what you think the equivalent is in terms of our audio systems or what one hears at a concert to pixel count.
Ron, since you have decided not to get the AS 2000 turntable from David and you have talked about how much you like it’s sound, will you try to replace it with another turntable that sounds similar to it, or will you move in a different direction?
How would you describe the sound of the AS 2000, and what are you looking for in your next turntable?
Last edited:
Scott, Did Ron indicate that he experienced distress from this failed transaction? And on what do you base your confidence that he will find a turntable that will provide as much or more joy? How would you describe the practical every day use of the American sound turntable? What do you mean by increased musical insight and understanding? Have you heard the American Sound AS 2000?
I am beginning to like video more as a source for reviews. Spoken language with voice inflections and body movement seems to convey meaning easier than words. I get a much better sense what someone is experiencing when they are live, sharing the experience. Continued verbal thrashings over semantics is a turn off. Boring.
I believe it still can, sure would hate for you to miss out on ownership of such an amazing piece of machinery.
My best friend in life (RIP) came out of a couple years of literally beating the crap out of each other weekly for a couple years.
correct
Pixel count is a way to quantify the resolution of visual images.
It is an analogy, not an equivalence.
In digital audio that is one bit. From a speaker perspective I think that is the lowest input voltage that would produce an audible sound. But that is not really a quanta.
Resolution: can you hear a voltage output of a cd player of .01 uV or .1 uV? Whatever the lowest level would define the resolution of the system. I should probably add ‘not distorted’. In that sense the microscope analogy seems to work.
Given the turntable/tonearm/cartridge combination nature of vinyl playback I think it is extremely difficult to isolate with precision the sound of a turntable itself.
I think of the AS-2000 as highly resolving. It might very well be the most highly resolving turntable available today. It certainly was the most highly resolving turntable of any of the turntables at David's when I visited him several years ago.
I think the unique and rare motor, and the mass-oriented design and the air-floated platter together position optimally a tonearm and a cartridge to get as much information out of the vinyl grooves as any turntable can. The fact that Nishikawa picked David's Pabst motor used in the AS-2000 for TechDAS' Air Force Zero for $450,000 tells me a whole lot!
Looking for? I will stay with belt-drive. Since the turntable is not in the line of fire of the speakers I do not worry about acoustic feedback. So I don't place a lot of value on a complex suspension. Suspension-less is fine with me.
There are several brand new turntables aimed at state-of-the-art. But I'm the guy who wants the last Ferrari off the production line, not the first one.
I think it's difficult, if not impossible, to assume accurately the sound of a turntable based on its design. It will take quite some time for these new top-tier turntables to work their way through the professional review process, and work their way into the hands of WBF members who have the experience to evaluate them side-by-side with other top turntables.
I, personally, would be more comfortable with the second iteration of these new turntables, especially from a company which has not previously made, or recently made, an exotic and very expensive turntable.
Philosophically I would not be keen on a turntable whose designer seeks to maximize one particular attribute. For example, some turntables seek to minimize vibration and maximize damping. My concern would be whether this dampens too much energy or life out of the sound.
This is all a cosmopolitan splitting of hairs. At friends' houses I've had experience with and enjoyed Acoustic Signature, Bergmann, Brinkmann, Clearaudio, Kuzma, Reed, TechDAS, VPI, Vyger. I'm sure I'd be happy with a turntable from any of these companies.
You like dictionary definitions. Here is one for “analogy”: a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
In audio, what is comparable to pixel count in significant respects?
Pixel count is analogous to bit depth in audio. Just as a higher pixel count allows for finer details and smoother gradients in visual images, a higher bit depth in audio provides greater resolution and accuracy in representing the subtle nuances of the sound waveform.
Thank you Ron for that excellent response to my questions. I appreciate it. Yes, it is difficult to isolate TT performance in a system. I was lucky to do it for this table with two others, as well as my old SME and a friend’s Technics SP10 III, all in my own system. I learned a lot about the turntable’s contribution to the sound of the system. I am sure you could learn a lot from visiting Mike. The CS Port is a similar mass/belt drive approach.
I appreciate that. It makes sense for digital which has defined parameters, ie. resolution. I can see how one can view that in objective terms, pardon the pun. Analog is much less defined, or undefined in terms of resolution and would seem more subjective, based on one’s ability to perceive. We see the 25 members of a big choir. We may or may not be able to hear and distinguish the individual voices.
I once heard a story of a pianist striking ten keys simultaneously at a dinner party. One of the guests was able to identify precisely each key played in that instant in time. The others were quite amazed.
I will make a suggestion; Kronos Pro LE. Every room I have heard at shows with a Kronos were at least good (for shows this is already significant praise) to outstanding. When said rooms changed to digital it was like flicking off a light switch. Anecdotal? Sure, but surprisingly consistent.
Marvelous example.
The latest notion latched onto is "the ability to hear and to make out the words of one or more individual voices in a choir, versus an aggregated mass of voices that cannot be teased apart."
Hearing individual choristers enunciating each syllable during the Hallelujah Chorus is high resolution comparable to hearing each individual note in a chord simultaneously. Take it further ... even higher resolution is simultaneously hearing the individual letters in a word. Throw in some choristers singing at different pitch than others. Or actually hearing 'N' harmonics beyond the fundamental.
Is there a point when resolution no longer yields the musical content the composer intends?
"System X has more resolution than system Y" is not a judgement of value but a judgement of quantity. The analog of countable bit rates and depths for the pixelators. Whether X or Y is more realistic, which one sounds more like live music, there is a value judgement.
I thought bit depth was about moving out the high frequency cutoff. Not about being able to hear a smoother waveform.