Ron's Favorite Private Rooms + Systems of All Time

[Audiohertz2]

I can be very technically competent without actually designing stuff from ground up
I´ve built ss and tubes amps, dacs, built up speaker systems etc
when it coms to subs I leave that to a man I really admire and he´s been more than keen to do custom designs for me
actually next monday we´re doing a shootout here between some 18 transmission line subs that he believes might match my horn subs

18 ...!

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

18 inch drivers in 300L cabs from 65 and down
2 or 4 cabs...we´ll see/hear

 

[Audiohertz2]

The above system was not in a custom built nor treated room - if anything, it was being held back by the room. Where the genius was, was set up - and I do consider it the only genius set up outside DIYing set ups (where they think through the signal path and adjust it to custom requirement), and that set up happened because of component matching and the signal path.

The set up did not come from absorbers or diffusers - it came from thinking about combining a crossoverless speaker with the best lowest watt tube amp, and a signal chain without caps and resistors, with the best linear tracker available and a coreless cartridge which 6 years on continues to be the reference of those who heard it in analog (look at how many Vyger red sparrows we have today).

And most importantly, the sound came from the recordings - bad records sounded crap. The soundstage and purity and realism was the record through a pure path.

There were a lot of takeways from that - that analog sounds better if the signal path is adjusted accordingly, and recordings are good, rather than if you have a 450k table and a 15k cartridge putting the cow through the meat grinder. Which is why the Dual turntable with a Shure cartridge competes with this system. Pietro's Yamamura yes, had the top Zyx ultimate on the top Graham arm on a Monaco 1.0, and was a bigger version of the Pnoe.

No resistors or caps in the signal path , can you explain sounds odd ...



Regards

 

[bonzo75]

No resistors or caps in the signal path , can you explain sounds odd ...



Regards

You can read up Mayer's designs of 10y pre, 46 amp and his D3a phono on his vinylsavor blog.

 

[Audiohertz2]

You can read up Mayer's designs of 10y pre, 46 amp and his D3a phono on his vinylsavor blog.

Do you have a link as this sounds like more “Pure ClassA “ folklore ......

 

[PeterA]

This hobby is about sound, something that typed words do not provide but videos do.

Exactly.

To be a credible witness, you must first demonstrate yourself to be a subject matter expert. I don’t think that the sound that you have presented with your own system makes your a credible arbiter; therefore I would trust my own assessment of the sound on video over your “in person, in the room reporting”. Sorry, but the level of lack of understanding that you have displayed & results that you have achieved with your own system does not allow me to trust your judgement of others’ systems. Sorry I have to be honest.

To be fair, Ron is not saying that the 10 systems he lists are the best systems. He is simply saying that these are the top two groups of five that he has heard that he “likes” the most. They are his favorite private rooms plus systems of all time. Of course that is subject to change without notice, as it did with the General’s room.

This ranking is about taste. I was hoping that Ron might explain the criteria for the sound and why he likes it. Especially the sound of Marty’s room which is just visited for three days. We have very little about the room or the sound from his opening post.

 

[Audiohertz2]

You can read up Mayer's designs of 10y pre, 46 amp and his D3a phono on his vinylsavor blog.

Can you confirm this system to be your top dog setup ..?

 

[bonzo75]

Can you confirm this system to be your top dog setup ..?

Yamamura, this, some dual FLHs

 

[PeterA]

The title of the thread is interesting. The opening post has nothing to do with the title and it states the obvious. From there, there is little content or substance about the title or the OP except for two lists of Ron's rankings.

This is a very strange thread.

 

[exupgh12]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for dedicating time to address my inquiries. It's wonderful that you share your perspective.


3. How does each system contribute to your overall listening experience? Are there any specific elements that enhance the enjoyment of music for you?

Would you please elaborate here? I'm not really understanding what you mean hear different from other questions on this list.

I was inquiring whether you extract elements from each system you like and attempt to incorporate them into your own system?

 

[PeterA]

What does this teach me? This teaches me that the single most important thing in this hobby is to have a large, dedicated, custom-built room!

1. Ron, Why do you think the room must be dedicated and custom built? I get that it should be large.

2. Also, why do you feel that the "single most important thing in this hobby" is a room with those qualities? Why is a good room MORE important than good set up and good gear? I would put them more or less as equal legs on a three-legged stool.

3. If the room is the most important, could you write a bit about the ten rooms on your two lists of five systems?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for dedicating time to address my inquiries. It's wonderful that you share your perspective.

My pleasure!

I was inquiring whether you extract elements from each system you like and attempt to incorporate them into your own system?

Not really. For example, each custom-built room has an underlying philosophy. Each system has an underlying philosophy.

For example, Mike's room is more sonically reflective than is Marty's room.

I can't really reconcile across that matrix of different objectives, different philosophies and different components.

For example, I do not believe that one loudspeaker does everything better than any other loudspeaker.

I think of the five systems in a tier as being on the same indifference curve. They sound different, but each in their own way qualifies to be in that tier.

 

[PeterA]

My pleasure!


Not really. For example, each custom-built room has an underlying philosophy. Each system has an underlying philosophy.

For example, Mike's room is more sonically reflective than is Marty's room.

I can't really reconcile across that matrix of different objectives, different philosophies and different components.

For example, I do not believe that one loudspeaker does everything better than any other loudspeaker.

I think of the five systems in a tier as being on the same indifference curve. They sound different, but each in their own way qualifies to be in that tier.

Ron, what puts Marty’s system in the top tier and your system in the second tier?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, what puts Marty’s system in the top tier and your system in the second tier?

1) The dimensions of Marty's room and the built-in ceiling Helmholtz resonators and other acoustic treatment result in a room which seemingly cannot be overloaded by bass at any remotely normal SPL. They never has any low frequency thickening or dulling or overhang.

Marty's room is an example of a top-tier room which would allow any pair of loudspeakers to shine.

2) Marty's system overall has a more natural tonal balance than mine does presently. Marty's room is quite absorptive, and, for example, piano in my room sounds lighter and more "tinkly" than it does in Marty's room + system.

3) The width of Marty's room allows the development of a wider soundstage than my room can support.

4) Marty's dynamics are stunning. Grafting big dual Gotham G213 V2s onto a full-range system gets you more oomph and impact than does my two-way with no subwoofers.

5) There is better, more seamless integration between Marty's Alexx Vs and the Gothams than I have between the panels and the woofer towers.

From the bottom of the frequency range to the top of the frequency range the integration of drivers is so seamless that I think it may be the case that people who complain about Wilson loudspeaker driver coherence simply have never heard Wilson speakers set up this well.

I wonder very seriously if Daryl Wilson has ever heard Alexx Vs accomplish what they accomplish in Marty's system.

In summary: better room, more natural tonal balance, better dynamics, better integration. All of this adds up to a greater suspension of disbelief and a more believable re-creation of the sound of what I hear in Walt Disney Concert Hall.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you Ron. I appreciate the specifics that you described. Do you plan to apply what you learned from your visit to Marty, or from the other eight rooms and set ups, to your own room?

 

[Carlos269]

Thank you Ron. I appreciate the specifics that you described.

Peter can you please enlighten me and list the “specifics” that Ron detailed? To me it read like a bunch of hand-waving without a single useful nugget of information. Perhaps I missed it so if you can list out these “specifics” that you refer to, perhaps I can learn something about Marty’s great room.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you Ron. I appreciate the specifics that you described.

Sure!

Do you plan to apply what you learned from your visit to Marty,

Other than a renewed appreciation for Wilson Audio loudspeakersI don't think I learned anything actually new from my visit to Marty.

or from the other eight rooms and set ups, to your own room?

From prior visits over the last several years I'm sure I incorporated into my current thinking things I learned and heard in other rooms.

 

[PeterA]

Peter can you please enlighten me and list the “specifics” that Ron detailed? To me it read like a bunch of hand-waving without a single useful nugget of information. Perhaps I missed it so if you can list out these “specifics” that you refer to, perhaps I can learn something about Marty’s great room.

Sure Carlos.

1. Ron wrote that Marty’s tonal balance is more natural than his system presents.

2. Ron wrote that Marty’s system has “stunning dynamics”.

3. Ron wrote that Marty’s system has a wider soundstage than he can get in his room.

Now, we have heard Ron’s videos and he has stated that his videos are representative of the sound he hears in his room. We can form our own opinion about Ron‘s system from his videos and writings and conclude that Ron thinks the total balance, dynamics, and soundstage width of Marty’s system are better than what we perceive of Ron’s system from his video. That is something specific.

This answers the question for me of why Ron puts Marty’s system in a higher tier than his own. I’m not saying I learned anything about Marty’s system except what Ron thinks it sounds like relative to his own, and we have some idea of that by watching his videos.

Now, a few things from Ron’s description strike me as a bit strange. In my experience there is a very loose and tenuous correlation between one’s room width and the sound stage width presented by a system in that room. I also find it rather odd that Ron “seriously wonders” if Daryl Wilson has ever heard his own Alex V creation sound as good as it does in Marty’s room. I see no basis for such speculation. Finally, the claim that Marty’s room cannot be overloaded because of the room treatment in the ceiling seems like pure conjecture.

I thank Ron for describing in more detail what was not written earlier when he introduced the thread. Ron does here describe some specifics about the differences he perceives between the two systems and rooms. But they are only subjective observations from which we can not learn much.

You are looking for some kind of enlightenment. I do not think you will find it. My expectations are lower, but Ron did explain why he put Marty’s system in a higher tier than his own. And I do appreciate that.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Now, we have heard Ron’s videos and he has stated that his videos are representative of the sound he hears in his room.

Hello Peter,

I never stated this this broadly. At one point I posted that I think the overall tonal balance and relative transparency can be discerned from the videos. But I think a month or so ago I retracted even that.

 

[Carlos269]

Sure Carlos.

1. Ron wrote that Marty’s tonal balance is more natural than his system presents.

What does this mean?

2. Ron wrote that Marty’s system has “stunning dynamics”.

Macro dynamic ? Micro dynamic? Both. Is this in terms of dynamic range or impact?

3. Ron wrote that Marty’s system has a wider soundstage than he can get in his room.

Is Marty’s room wider? How do the proportions in room widths compare to the differences in proportions to perceived soundstage widths?

Now, we have heard Ron’s videos and he has stated that his videos are representative of the sound he hears in his room. We can form our own opinion about Ron‘s system from his videos and writings and conclude that Ron thinks the total balance, dynamics, and soundstage width of Marty’s system are better than what we perceive of Ron’s system from his video. That is something specific.

It is certainly an inference, but I’m not sure that it is more than that. Certainly no specificity

This answers the question for me of why Ron puts Marty’s system in a higher tier than his own. I’m not saying I learned anything about Marty’s system except what Ron thinks it sounds like relative to his own, and we have some idea of that by watching his videos.

Now, a few things from Ron’s description strike me as a bit strange. In my experience there is a very loose and tenuous correlation between one’s room width and the sound stage width presented by a system in that room. I also find it rather odd that Ron “seriously wonders” if Daryl Wilson has ever heard his own Alex V creation sound as good as it does in Marty’s room.

That statement about Daryl’s lack of experience is quite a claim. In my view this is a baseless claim.

I see no basis for such speculation. Finally, the claim that Marty’s room cannot be overloaded because of the room treatment in the ceiling seems like pure conjecture.

I agree. All rooms can be overloaded rather easily with sustained excitation of the room modes.

I thank Ron for describing in more detail what was not written earlier when he introduced the thread. Ron does here describe some specifics about the differences he perceives between the two systems and rooms. But they are only subjective observations from which we can not learn much.

My day to day business activities require precision and no room for error, so my definition of “specifics” is more stringent.

You are looking for some kind of enlightenment. I do not think you will find it. My expectations are lower, but Ron did explain why he put Marty’s system in a higher tier than his own. And I do appreciate that.

Thank you Peter. You have confirmed most of what I already took from Ron’s post.

We are all in this hobby at different levels of understanding and comprehension of the elements at play. I assume that this is why I’m able to get the results that I get in this hobby. For some this is a very topical endeavor, while for others this is a hobby that we work hard to understand, master, and excel at. As they say, to each their own.