Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

Did Ron use a different power cord on the Italians than on the French?

no

 

[Holmz]

The perception of ChatGPT knowledge depends on knowledge of the user.

But I found that asking the bot the proper questions to force him to consider the adequate sources sources ameliorates the result. He can be a good slave. Many times when I ask him for his sources of information he changes the answer with a kind apology ...

I did not grow up in the south, so it’s not a skill I possess.

On a less sarcastic note… what makes you think you’re the master in your relationship with the AI ?
(Maybe I am not enough of an optimist… )

 

[Holmz]

no

OK - good to know.

In that case the leg of the Ishikawa chart that says Power, and which has power cords hanging off of it, could now be excluded if we were using a fishbone diagram.

 

[morricab]

@marty
I got almost the opposite from chat GPT. It said Rhoidum and Gold are both noble and very good as a cord to duplex connection. It said Palladium and brass were not as good.

I don't know which is correct. AI is such a lying mess. I am finding it less and less accurate. But, I will mix and match and try stuff. I am actually not sure the Oyaide duplex I put in the wall is better than the 20A tin coated GFI that was there. I have to take a listen. The cord I was given made a notable difference. That was apparent in the GFI. I don't know about the change when I swapped the Oyaide in. I should have let things settle more before switching. I still need to get a gold Furutech.

I think we were talking about metals in contact. Not plating. But I don't know how Marty asked the question. I asked and it started talking about plating metals. I then told it I was using a cord with one metal and a duplex with the other. It said that was different and gave a different answer. It said brass was not a noble metal and would have more issues. I just don't know. It will come down to listening.

Brass oxidizes because it contains quite a bit of copper. Once it oxidizes it will not conduct as well. Gold and Rhodium are not great conductors but are very inert.

 

[marty]

Did Ron use a different power cord on the Italians than on the French?
Or is there plating on the amplifier’s female hole at is different for the French than the Italians?

If by female hole you are referring to the IEC chassis outlet, my understanding is:
1) Nobody uses pure a copper IEC. Too soft. I don't even know if anyone makes one.
2) Most IEC outlets use phosphor bronze (probably >90%) or beryllium copper as they are far less malleable than pure cooper. Beryllium copper gets a bad rap these days as beryllium is thought to be somewhat carcinogenic. So if you choose a beryllium copper IEC, don't eat it!
3) I think gold plated copper and rhodium plated copper IEC outlets are now readily available from Furutech and others.

Sometimes a manufacturer will tell you what they use if you ask. Emile told me he prefers an Oyaide C-004 type (Palladium over platinum over beryllium copper) IEC outlet so it was easy for me to match that with the male end for a custom power cable. Other manufacturers are not as forthcoming as they babble endlessly about "trade secret" BS. However, it's relatively easy to guess just by looking. If the prongs are pale yellow, it's probably phosphor bronze. Bright yellow suggests gold plating. A whitish metal appearance suggests rhodium or palladium plating.

 

[Atmasphere]

I was tod by a manufacturer that most of the time the efficiency of a planar speaker is an approximate number quoted by the manufacturer simply by comparison with a known box speaker used as a reference in dubious conditions. The standard method applies only to point like speakers measured in anechoic conditions - the only value that can be directly compared - but usually it is measured in non standard conditions and corrections are made to this value, introducing large errors. Unfortunately values quoted by manufacturers commonly carry errors up to +3dB. Also they often refer to sensitivity as being efficiency or vice versa - and they are two different things, and many times use different weighting systems in the measurement. An higher number sells better, but can be misleading.

The assumption is the spec is an accurate reading of a microphone placed 1 meter from the speaker; this is what some planar manufacturers have told me (Sound Lab and Magnaplanar). There's no other metric with which to work.

Of course if numbers have been fudged we can expect a lower actual reading. But we must keep in mind that any planar speaker will be a good 6dB higher in an actual room.

 

[Holmz]

If by female hole you are referring to the IEC chassis outlet, my understanding is:

Yeah the “inlet” to the amplifier… where the power cords is hanging off it opposite the end at the wall.
(Based upon the context)

1) Nobody uses pure a copper IEC. Too soft. I don't even know if anyone makes one.
2) Most IEC outlets use phosphor bronze (probably >90%) or beryllium copper as they are far less malleable than pure cooper. Beryllium copper gets a bad rap these days as beryllium is thought to be somewhat carcinogenic. So if you choose a beryllium copper IEC, don't eat it!

Well it is when one grinds it, but in beryllium copper form it’s not like grinding a brake rotor with abrasives.

3) I think gold plated copper and rhodium plated copper IEC outlets are now readily available from Furutech and others.

Exactly - if one amp was using one, and the cross border amp as using a different coloured one, then maybe the metallurgy would be possible. If they are bother Be-Cu then it seems unlikely.

Sometimes a manufacturer will tell you what they use if you ask. Emile told me he prefers an Oyaide C-004 type (Palladium over platinum over beryllium copper) IEC outlet so it was easy for me to match that with the male end for a custom power cable. Other manufacturers are not as forthcoming as they babble endlessly about "trade secret" BS. However, it's relatively easy to guess just by looking. If the prongs are pale yellow, it's probably phosphor bronze. Bright yellow suggest gold plating. A whitish metal appearance suggests rhodium or palladium plating.

Copy - thanks

 

[PeterA]

I was tod by a manufacturer that most of the time the efficiency of a planar speaker is an approximate number quoted by the manufacturer simply by comparison with a known box speaker used as a reference in dubious conditions. The standard method applies only to point like speakers measured in anechoic conditions - the only value that can be directly compared - but usually it is measured in non standard conditions and corrections are made to this value, introducing large errors. Unfortunately values quoted by manufacturers commonly carry errors up to +3dB. Also they often refer to sensitivity as being efficiency or vice versa - and they are two different things, and many times use different weighting systems in the measurement. An higher number sells better, but can be misleading.

This is disappointing to read, but not all that surprising. Pass labs, on the other hand, is known for being overly conservative in their power ratings. Their amplifiers often measure delivering more power than specified.

I’m curious if higher efficiency or sensitivity numbers sell better, why don’t speaker manufacturers focus more on much easier to drive products? It sure would open up more options for customers. I suppose it’s a struggle between form factor, size, and efficiency.

Given the need for power to drive many panel speakers, are they really still the reference for transparency?

 

[Holmz]

This is disappointing to read, but not all that surprising. Pass labs, on the other hand, is known for being overly conservative in their power ratings. Their amplifiers often measure delivering more power than specified.

I’m curious if higher efficiency or sensitivity numbers sell better, why don’t speaker manufacturers focus more on much easier to drive products? It sure would open up more options for customers. I suppose it’s a struggle between form factor, size, and efficiency.

I doubt it…
I‘ve heard the term “Monday coffins” used to refer to 2 way speakers.
On the topic of form factor…
I put a link in at the bottom, and one of the boxes in the picture is labeled as a svelte 132 kg, so about 300 pounds.

There is a perception is some countries that bigger is better, and why have just a burger when one would have a Big Mac.

Manufacturers are not generally making speakers these days to be easy to drive, and CLass-D amps that can go down to 1 or 2 ohms were not made without a need for them to exist.

People started making speakers to differentiate themselves from others, and getting 3-6 dB out of a speaker by s hanging the spec from watts to 2.8v is easy when you lower in the impedance of the drivers.

Given the need for power to drive many panel speakers, are they really still the reference for transparency?

I have not heard many, but they were good.

Thank you, gentlemen.

View attachment 105209View attachment 105210View attachment 105211View attachment 105212View attachment 105213

 

[microstrip]

(...) Given the need for power to drive many panel speakers, are they really still the reference for transparency?

IMO the question is biased by your own feelings about power and as so can be tricky to answer. But it is nice to see you asking about an audiophile property that is listed in the same TAS audio glossary that includes "black background" ... I quote from TAS:

"Transparency is used to indicate the sense that a device can transmit a signal faithfully. In music reproduction, this means the device gets closer to what we imagine happened at the live (studio or concert) event. Transparency is mostly a combination of resolution and naturalness. We add the naturalness criterion because at times, practically speaking, there are some artificial distortions that can seem to enhance resolution at the price of naturalness."

Panels differ so much that we can not generalize an answer. Most are not transparent, but the more transparent I listened is by far the inefficient ESL63 - operated within their limitations. Surely IMO, YMMV.

 

[morricab]

IMO the question is biased by your own feelings about power and as so can be tricky to answer. But it is nice to see you asking about an audiophile property that is listed in the same TAS audio glossary that includes "black background" ... I quote from TAS:

"Transparency is used to indicate the sense that a device can transmit a signal faithfully. In music reproduction, this means the device gets closer to what we imagine happened at the live (studio or concert) event. Transparency is mostly a combination of resolution and naturalness. We add the naturalness criterion because at times, practically speaking, there are some artificial distortions that can seem to enhance resolution at the price of naturalness."

Panels differ so much that we can not generalize an answer. Most are not transparent, but the more transparent I listened is by far the inefficient ESL63 - operated within their limitations. Surely IMO, YMMV.

I find it interesting that you consider the ESL 63 to be the most transparent panel you have heard. Every time I have heard them and the successors, the 988 and 989, they sound rather muffled and lacking transparency compared to Audiostatics, Acoustat Spectras, the ESL 57 and especially the STAX ELS F-81, which was by far the most transparent panel I have heard (sadly also the most dynamically limited as well). I woukd have thought the Soundlabs you own would also be superior to the 63s but I can’t comment on them as I haven’t heard them.

 

[Argonaut]

I find it interesting that you consider the ESL 63 to be the most transparent panel you have heard. Every time I have heard them and the successors, the 988 and 989, they sound rather muffled and lacking transparency compared to Audiostatics, Acoustat Spectras, the ESL 57 and especially the STAX ELS F-81, which was by far the most transparent panel I have heard (sadly also the most dynamically limited as well). I woukd have thought the Soundlabs you own would also be superior to the 63s but I can’t comment on them as I haven’t heard them.

I cannot but cede to micro’s personal experiences Brad … however for my part I would agree with you , in that I found both Soundlabs and ESL63’s to be somewhat closer cousin’s than distant relatives … I very much enjoyed my time with Soundlabs knowing full well that I was giving up a little upper range clarity and that dreaded word ‘resolution’ for weight of tone and texture in the upper bass and mid fundamentals and harmonics , which was however quite addictive when immersed in an evening of Jazz and Single Malt .

Where transparency and accuracy to the recording was concerned … I would give that to ESL 57’s until they ran out of headroom and ML CLX Anniversaries imho, ymmv etctera .

 

[microstrip]

I find it interesting that you consider the ESL 63 to be the most transparent panel you have heard. Every time I have heard them and the successors, the 988 and 989, they sound rather muffled and lacking transparency compared to Audiostatics, Acoustat Spectras, the ESL 57 and especially the STAX ELS F-81, which was by far the most transparent panel I have heard (sadly also the most dynamically limited as well). I woukd have thought the Soundlabs you own would also be superior to the 63s but I can’t comment on them as I haven’t heard them.

Surely it is a subjective opinion. I have owned several pairs of ESL57, Audiostatics and listened several times to Acoustats , not the STAX. Staying close to "the device gets closer to what we imagine happened at the live (studio or concert) event." for me the ESL63 could show more resolution, detail and more inside the whole music than the others.
Again IMO I found the others either more limited or not so balanced (favoring some aspects and ignoring others) as the ESL63. For some reason ESL63 were (are?) used by some professionals as monitors for classical music.

Again my subjective opinion, the only speaker with full range and scale I had in my room that could rival them was the Wilson Audio XLF. Soundlab's are great speakers, but for the purpose of our subject are colored - there are no miracles when you drive an almost two square meter film full range. BTW, for me transparency also addresses space.

 

[Kingrex]

I did not grow up in the south, so it’s not a skill I possess.

On a less sarcastic note… what makes you think you’re the master in your relationship with the AI ?
(Maybe I am not enough of an optimist… )

I'm totally into the Ratchets - INFERNO. No, we are not in control.

 

[cjfrbw]

Seems like the Nelson Pass First Watt SIT-5 is also a tryout candidate for Clarysis speakers for a single ended Tokin SIT with no feedback. Specs in the brochure are conservative, but NP himself says it is effectively 40 watts @8ohms and 80 watts @4ohms. True triode transistor.

Subject to tryout, but the effective efficiency of the Clarysis in sound output per watt could make it feasible.

I have a Tokin SIT amp from Phoenix Audio Thailand modeled on the SIT3, in a push pull arrangement with a MOSFET (not single ended), and it sounds great.

 

[PeterA]

IMO the question is biased by your own feelings about power and as so can be tricky to answer. But it is nice to see you asking about an audiophile property that is listed in the same TAS audio glossary that includes "black background" ... I quote from TAS:

"Transparency is used to indicate the sense that a device can transmit a signal faithfully. In music reproduction, this means the device gets closer to what we imagine happened at the live (studio or concert) event. Transparency is mostly a combination of resolution and naturalness. We add the naturalness criterion because at times, practically speaking, there are some artificial distortions that can seem to enhance resolution at the price of naturalness."

Panels differ so much that we can not generalize an answer. Most are not transparent, but the more transparent I listened is by far the inefficient ESL63 - operated within their limitations. Surely IMO, YMMV.

That’s great, but I never thought artificial distortions enhance resolution. Whether or not something sounds natural is the key question here.

I asked the question about panels because if a panel needs a lot of power, it is dependent on a big powerful amplifier. Are there any big powerful amplifiers that are transparent? The presentation that one hears in the room is necessarily a combination of the two.

 

[PeterA]

I find it interesting that you consider the ESL 63 to be the most transparent panel you have heard. Every time I have heard them and the successors, the 988 and 989, they sound rather muffled and lacking transparency compared to Audiostatics, Acoustat Spectras, the ESL 57 and especially the STAX ELS F-81, which was by far the most transparent panel I have heard (sadly also the most dynamically limited as well). I woukd have thought the Soundlabs you own would also be superior to the 63s but I can’t comment on them as I haven’t heard them.

Brad, how can something sound transparent if it is not dynamic? I always thought that if the dynamics of a given performance are captured on a recording, the system would have to present those dynamics accurately for the system to be transparent.

 

[Holmz]

Brad, how can something sound transparent if it is not dynamic? I always thought that if the dynamics of a given performance are captured on a recording, the system would have to present those dynamics accurately for the system to be transparent.

Then how come some amps that are low power and have high distortion on peaks sound more dynamic, and low distortion high power often sound quieter?

That’s great, but I never thought artificial distortions enhance resolution. Whether or not something sounds natural is the key question here.

Enhancing resolution may not be natural.

I asked the question about panels because if a panel needs a lot of power, it is dependent on a big powerful amplifier. Are there any big powerful amplifiers that are transparent?

How big is big? If it is 50 or 100W then there are many transparent amps.

The presentation that one hears in the room is necessarily a combination of the two.

^100%^

 

[Ron Resnick]

Brad, how can something sound transparent if it is not dynamic?

Transparency and dynamics are two separate attributes.

 

[morricab]

Transparency and dynamics are two separate attributes.

Thx Ron, you saved me a lot of words…