Ron’s New System

[Al M.]

Thanks for tracking down those links Al.

You're welcome, Peter.

As far as who knows how the actual system compares to the sound of the video, I would suggest the guy who heard the system and made the video. He of course can listen to both and make an assessment.

I wouldn't trust that assessment either. As someone once said, people who make videos tend to project their memory of what the system sounds like on the video sound, and think the video sounds better than it actually does. I think that may very well be true (otherwise, why do some people post crappy videos with the utmost confidence?). The people who hear the video without that privileged reference to the original sound then scratch their heads.

 

[AudioLibertarian]

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 ( in my experience a rather very slightly above mid-fi brand, that to my ears is nowhere near the level of the PFF-100), and a rather long (47 feet) interconnects into an additional passive circuitry that for sure will introduce "parasitic" distortions.

 

[Holmz]

Don’t know what you mean by output SPL matching input’s signal.

I mean the acoustic signal matching the electrical signal.
(Aka zero distortion)

Some researchers have concluded that an exponential decay of harmonics staring with 2nd harmonic is the least offensive of all patterns because it “hides” in our perceptual blind spots.

^100%^.

I have heard exponential as well.
And I have also heard only 2nd and 3rd, with the second harmonic being “exponentially higher” than the 3rd… with no 4th etc being present.

Even with just 2nd and 3rd though, our ear are much better at spatially locating those wavelengths than it is for the fundamental.
And a higher level of 2nd and 3rd would seem to be more localizable than a ilower level of second and third.

And Oone of ^those^ may be preferred over zero distortion?

 

[Holmz]

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 ( in my experience a rather very slightly above mid-fi brand, that to my ears is nowhere near the level of the PFF-100), and a rather long (47 feet) interconnects into an additional passive circuitry that for sure will introduce "parasitic" distortions.

While I’ve sort of lost track of the system after the many pages… Have the speakers changed?
It is somewhat of a fact that speaker’s drivers have higher levels of distortion than most amps. (But their distortions are generally lower order.)

Or maybe it is the preamp…

Long RCAs normally should be rolling off the high frequencies rather than accentuating them.
Could it be possible that they are running the preamp into oscillation that is causing ultrasonic frequencies and there is IMD that is making high frequency harmonics?
(It can happen with power amps and long speaker cables, and high slew rate amps… so it seems worth asking)

@DonH50 this question seems like it could be within your baliwick of skills, or @Atmasphere ’s…

 

[Al M.]

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 ( in my experience a rather very slightly above mid-fi brand, that to my ears is nowhere near the level of the PFF-100), and a rather long (47 feet) interconnects into an additional passive circuitry that for sure will introduce "parasitic" distortions.

Trying to match preamp and amp can lead to the strangest results. In matching trials I have heard a number of preamp/amp combos in the same system that just sounded off, with the oddest incompatibilities. Unless both preamp and amp come from the same manufacturer, it's anyone's guess if a given combo might work.

 

[AudioLibertarian]

While I’ve sort of lost track of the system after the many pages… Have the speakers changed?
It is somewhat of a fact that speaker’s drivers have higher levels of distortion than most amps. (But their distortions are generally lower order.)

Or maybe it is the preamp…

Long RCAs normally should be rolling off the high frequencies rather than accentuating them.
Could it be possible that they are running the preamp into oscillation that is causing ultrasonic frequencies and there is IMD that is making high frequency harmonics?
(It can happen with power amps and long speaker cables, and high slew rate amps… so it seems worth asking)

@DonH50 this question seems like it could be within your baliwick of skills, or @Atmasphere ’s…

Clarysis Studio are the current speakers.

 

[AudioLibertarian]

Or maybe it is the preamp…

Long RCAs normally should be rolling off the high frequencies rather than accentuating them.
Could it be possible that they are running the preamp into oscillation that is causing ultrasonic frequencies and there is IMD that is making high frequency harmonics?
(It can happen with power amps and long speaker cables, and high slew rate amps… so it seems worth asking)

@DonH50 this question seems like it could be within your baliwick of skills, or @Atmasphere ’s…

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 .

 

[tima]

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.

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.

Those who have a well understood reference can at least recognize when they get closer to or farther from it. In your quartet-in-the-living-room example some may have the reaction you describe if they are unfamiliar with what live acoustic string music sounds like. They find 'the real thing' displeasing. Granted there are several folks here who prefer listening to their stereos versus attending live events. It is personal choice and does need to be rational.

 

[hopkins]

Those who have a well understood reference can at least recognize when they get closer to or farther from it.

The logic here is dubious. Fact: "those who have a well understood reference" choose to have very different systems.

 

[Al M.]

Fact: "those who have a well understood reference" choose to have very different systems.

Good point. It's true, they do, because they differ in the interpretation of what they hear within their reference, based on their biases, listening priorities and preferences.

However, even with these caveats, having such a reference is still a positive guide, as opposed to having no guide at all.

 

[tima]

The logic here is dubious. Fact: "those who have a well understood reference" choose to have very different systems.

Hopkins, your inanity never ceases to amaze. Different peopie can have different references.

 

[hopkins]

Hopkins, your inanity never ceases to amaze. Different peopie can have different references.

Because we live in a world of natural sounds, everyone has a reference. So your statements are just meaningless. Worse, they could be understood as an elitist point of view...

Concerning the subject matter, many people are confused and dissatisfied in audio, not because they don't have a good reference, but simply because they may have not been exposed to the right systems. There is so much out there, and so many very different sounding competing solutions.

 

[PeterA]

You're welcome, Peter.



I wouldn't trust that assessment either. As someone once said, people who make videos tend to project their memory of what the system sounds like on the video sound, and think the video sounds better than it actually does. I think that may very well be true (otherwise, why do some people post crappy videos with the utmost confidence?). The people who hear the video without that privileged reference to the original sound then scratch their heads.

Some people find videos useful and enjoy learning from them. I understand that you do not, but you continue to watch them, comment on them and criticize them.

 

[PeterA]

Because we live in a world of natural sounds, everyone has a reference. So your statements are just meaningless. Worse, they could be understood as an elitist point of view...

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.

Concerning the subject matter, many people are confused and dissatisfied in audio, not because they don't have a good reference, but simply because they may have not been exposed to the right systems. There is so much out there, and so many very different sounding competing solutions.

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.

 

[microstrip]

Good point. It's true, they do, because they differ in the interpretation of what they hear within their reference, based on their biases, listening priorities and preferences.

We must remember that stereo is not a facsimile of the real sound wave and carries much less information than reality - our brain creates an illusionary sound field from the manipulated information carried in two channels and our experience.

However, even with these caveats, having such a reference is still a positive guide, as opposed to having no guide at all.

Yes, but we must accept that the myth of the "sound of acoustic instruments in a real space" risks carrying us in a never ending search. Unless we get brainwashed by someone that persuades us we have reached it ...

Anyway, we will use our exposition to real music to strengthen our biases and this can be a positive thing. My system does not sound like real but sounds much better after I go to a concert ...

 

[microstrip]

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.

Well, IMO judging other people systems according to this specific reference can be elitist and shows ignorance about sound reproduction. However I consider normal that we do it to our system - it is an individual hobby.

 

[bonzo75]

Some people find videos useful and enjoy learning from them. I understand that you do not, but you continue to watch them, comment on them and criticize them.

That’s precisely why I brought out that point where he said live concert video did not have oomph and rolled off highs. But hey, with such an aural template and video analysis he was the first to ask for video links in the recent sub discussion.

 

[PeterA]

Well, IMO judging other people systems according to this specific reference can be elitist and shows ignorance about sound reproduction. However I consider normal that we do it to our system - it is an individual hobby.

I appreciate the distinction you point out, but not the insult. People post videos of systems asking for commentary. We have many such video threads. Are you suggesting it is elitist to comment on someone else’s system sound as represented by a video? Or only if the commenter’s reference is real music? As someone pointed out, we live in the natural world in our surrounded by natural sounds. Some can certainly choose not to use that as a reference preferring to use something else.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, but we must accept that the myth of the "sound of acoustic instruments in a real space" risks carrying us in a never ending search. Unless we get brainwashed by someone that persuades us we have reached it ...

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 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.

Anyway, we will use our exposition to real music to strengthen our biases and this can be a positive thing. My system does not sound like real but sounds much better after I go to a concert ...

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

 

[microstrip]

And yet people post videos of systems asking for commentary. We have many video threads. Are you suggesting it is elitist to comment on someone else’s system sound as represented by a video? Or only if the commenters reference is real music?

I do not loose my time on videos - we debated why long ago. Just addressing the subject in general.