I am very sorry Ron... I was trying to make a funny about the sideways photo but it didn't work out well. My bad. More seriously, I think your setup is going to be awesome! I really think your power alone is going to give your system large head start over most. You are doing it right.
Ron's Speaker, Turntable, Power and Room Treatment Upgrades
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I am very sorry Ron... I was trying to make a funny about the sideways photo but it didn't work out well. My bad. More seriously, I think your setup is going to be awesome! I really think your power alone is going to give your system large head start over most. You are doing it right.
While I agree, the problem is I'm interpreting what I know everyone means. And I don't think anyone writing really has any idea what's going on, as to describe it correctly.
I guarantee what Ron means is nothing to do with rolled off frequencies. Because by extreme, he simply means the information that isn't the fundamental. He's talking about extremes of what the microphone pics up, as in they are extremely quiet. This has nothing to do with frequency range, which is what it sounds like it is implying.
And the thing is resolution is mutually exclusive to the extremes of what the microphone pics up. Most people here wouldn't really know that, because in general when you hear something it's our base nature to simplify it in terms we can deal with. So, in belief, if you hear more things, the resolution is then higher, because our point of reference is higher resolution visuals that do equal more information, which to us is "things" that may have been there before but were not noticed. But in reality with the microphones all the information was always there. Higher resolution can make it more intelligible but you cannot intelligent anything you cannot hear, because it is too quiet. Therefor what happens is when a stereo brings forward this information so that we can intelligent it, common belief is that resolution has increased. But it simply isn't so, only the volume specifically increased when you hear something you did not before. Now, how resolved it is, is the resolution. Does the talking sound clear and distinct or is it mushy? That's resolution, not whether you hear them chatting on stage or not.
Ron is wholly right to be curious about a cartridge doing the act of increasing volume to quieter parts of the music. To be blunt about the subject, anytime you have signal passing through wound wire, you have a higher chance of elongating the volume (voltage). This means MC cartridges, classD output filters, valve transformers, autoformers, even voice coils, etc, all have that potential. Now whether they do or not is an individualized matter, but we all are familiar with all the listed examples doing just that. The overall affect can be strange, as it changes the sound of instruments on top of pulling details forward.
I think Tango's analogy of Saving Private Ryan is more accurate than what people are trying to describe, but jumbling words up into a big mix bag of varying definition in these last few posts. The eye cannot focus on dirt, or things far fore/back-ground. Yet with 4k/HD somehow you can absorb it all at once. That might be cool for sports - but it's tough for me to look at TBH - but for movies it may be a negative experience toward the goal of the film when not used right. For those of us that have heard a lot of live music or are sensitive, or whatever, we feel detracted from the music when it isn't natural, and is more like an in-focus petri-dish that wants too much from us.
Another funner way to think of the problems for heightened detail (which can also be achieved from added RF noise, especially ala ground boxes) is that either the stereo has a lack of, or has been too nominalized to accurately portray differences in volume. Sure it might be able to deliver a wallop on certain specific tracks, and certain moments. But for example that doesn't mean vibrato is portrayed well. The different instruments simply don't portray their loudness well, but you can "hear everything". The funny thing is the volume of the fundamental didn't really change, but you can't "read" it once the "extremes" have become too prominent. Sadly this is easily as big of a problem with recordings as stereos, if not worse. The lack of...
You can't hear **** for details in live music. The fundamentals are too loud.
I think you're mixing resolution up with detail. Resolution of bass is what gives it definition. Detail would be the more subtle information that should be too quiet to hear, in bass, unless there are other factors like vibrations etc giving off information.
Coming from a musician's perspective, I always look for the instrument that allows me to express myself better. Therefore, an instrument that clearly portrays the smallest changes in tone and in my technique is more desired.
Last night I was listening to the Anadisc MFSL of Folk Singer...I have heard this LP on numerous occasions in the past; however, last night for the first time with my new tube amps. There was far more
information presented on what Buddy Guy was bringing to the session.His contribution to the whole was much more evident and his technique was a lot more obvious than I have ever heard before,
So, what am I saying here...well the additional resolution that I was hearing ( the fingering technique and numerous other small contributions that Buddy was bringing to the fore) allows me to appreciate a lot better the performance that was engraved into the grooves. While the performance that I had heard before on this LP was never less than stellar, this time the sound and the performance were simply more realistic.
Ron, if you are not looking for this..then I guess we are coming from VERY different places.
Folsom...I'm talking about details that are resolved in the recording that are revealed. Examples being harmonics,reverberation,instrumental nuance,physical movement,natural ambience,etc. I agree with davey the information was always there...the challenge is to find what if anything is obscuring the information.
In my experience in my system the dynamics have increased that the volume has to be decreased,resolution,detail or total information has increased at lower volume levels.
It's obscured by volume, mainly. Resolution plays a factor in ones ability to read it well, but not hear it. Distortion affects resolution, but resolution is not volume.
Suffice to say, to sound live, one's stereo correctly operating will obscure quiet things with the fundamental.
Harmonics and reverberation are part of the fundamental and shouldn't be grouped with nuance, physical movement in general, and ambiance. Those last three are rather manipulatable by adding Enoise or putting through some winding devices, to exaggerate them - them being quiet parts of songs. Harmonics and reverberation however will sound resolved by having higher resolution and correct volume (resolved: articulate & textured right) . While the three nons can sound more resolved, they will be too quiet to really read much unless the artist has made it very intentional, in which case nearly any stereo anywhere can portray them.
Last edited:
Folsom there tends to be so many levels of the onion skin to the information level..I continue to be surprised. The whole is the sum of the parts and that is how I perceive what I hear. I believe if you hear something that stands out above everything else it is probably a mismatch or the piece has not settled in sufficiently.
Tango do you have pics of your system as well , seems like you have a top system too , or is it on the audiogon?
HJ
HJ
It's Ron's thread. But since his room is not even close to complete, I just gonna brag him with pics of my room
.
Tang
To a certain extent, for me personally emotional impact and intellectual understanding go hand in hand. My favorite example, out of many possible ones, to explain why this is the case: If you do not intellectually recognize a variation of a melody as such, that is, in its relation to the original melody, how can you emotionally appreciate its beauty (as variation, not just as melody in itself)?
Understanding of music thus can considerably heighten its emotional impact. The human experience is a whole. One cannot neatly compartmentalize it into 'rational' and 'emotional' parts. Attempts to do so miss out on the richness of life.
Coming from a musician's perspective, I always look for the instrument that allows me to express myself better. Therefore, an instrument that clearly portrays the smallest changes in tone and in my technique is more desired.
Last night I was listening to the Anadisc MFSL of Folk Singer...I have heard this LP on numerous occasions in the past; however, last night for the first time with my new tube amps. There was far more
information presented on what Buddy Guy was bringing to the session.His contribution to the whole was much more evident and his technique was a lot more obvious than I have ever heard before,
So, what am I saying here...well the additional resolution that I was hearing ( the fingering technique and numerous other small contributions that Buddy was bringing to the fore) allows me to appreciate a lot better the performance that was engraved into the grooves. While the performance that I had heard before on this LP was never less than stellar, this time the sound and the performance were simply more realistic.
Ron, if you are not looking for this..then I guess we are coming from VERY different places.
Well said. Without looking for this, I don't even see the point of an expensive system.
I do agree with Ron and others though, detail can be exaggerated and 'etched' in an unnatural way. I heard this, for example, in an audition of a speaker (Magico S1, first version) that had an emphasis on the lower treble that is rarely found in live acoustics*). At first the detail was impressive, but it quickly became fatiguing and lack of realism was apparent. It was, what I would call, 'fake resolution'.
Yet close-up (unamplified) live music always overwhelms me with detail and nuance. I want all this reproduced as much as possible, with real resolution.
___________________
*) I haven't perceived this problem with other Magico speakers that I have heard
It's Ron's thread. But since his room is not even close to complete, I just gonna brag him with pics of my room
View attachment 38426
View attachment 38427
View attachment 38428
Tang
Beautiful! I will trade with you right now!
It's Ron's thread. But since his room is not even close to complete, I just gonna brag him with pics of my room
View attachment 38426
View attachment 38427
View attachment 38428
Tang
Dear Tang,
just wow!!!
thank you for the elegant pictures.
and more to come.....
best regards,
Mike
It's Ron's thread. But since his room is not even close to complete, I just gonna brag him with pics of my room
View attachment 38426
Tang
Lucky dog.........
Very nice system / room tango very analog , you should make a system thread too , I assume you have ayon audio monos.
I know this is rons thread and rons system is gonna get very good as well as it should be, he has the expirience and he takes the time
I know this is rons thread and rons system is gonna get very good as well as it should be, he has the expirience and he takes the time
Last edited:
Having read through all of the various posts, especially the recent ones from Folsom, I better understand the distinction people are making between resolution, detail, and how volume effects them. I also appreciate the emphasis on the Fundamental’s role in the importance of conveying the music’s emotional message and how false or enhanced details may distract one from that message.
Where this breaks down for me, and why I think that perhaps the opposing views may be sliding past each other, is in my recollection of how I hear small scale live music performances from a close up perspective and then how that is similar or not with what I have experienced in superior halls with large scale performances.
A year or so ago I attended a live chamber performance with some WBF members in Boston. We heard a violinist and a cellist perform in a large formal living room setting. A year prior to this, I heard the same cellist accompanied by a pianist. More than anything else, what strikes me about these two performances is the sheer energy that filled the room when the instruments were played. We sat roughly 15’ away. There were about twenty five people in the room. The volume and sound resonating into the room when the keys were struck or the strings were bowed was overwhelming. The amount of detail in that sound, the texture of the bow against the strings and the cello body and soundboard vibrating is something I will never forget.
A few years prior to this I spent five days sitting at the edge of the orchestra pit listening to rehearsals at the Vienna State Opera. A huge space, silent with only the singers, musicians and conductor, I could hear a pin drop on the stage floor. I heard people shuffling back stage, the pages being flipped at the podium. I heard that same energy from a solo cello during a passage. Then later during the evenings, I sat in the Director’s box seat in the second balcony way in the back of that great hall listening to different final performances. Again, I was struck by the details I heard on the stage. Though now, it was not a page being turned, or the concert master breathing, but a single triangle strike ringing and decaying in space, the low rumble of timpani, the individual voices as they sang in unison. Quiet sounds, projected beautifully long distances in that great hall.
The listening perspective had changed, the audible details changed, but the clarity and amount of sheer information remained extremely high from both seating positions. This change is possible because I moved. What is captured by the microphone and embedded in the grooves is fixed. That information is there for us to hear in as natural, undistorted and honest way as possible.
I don’t know if the energy released by the bow agitating the strings of a cello is the essence of the sound or a detail, but that friction, that texture followed by the resonating wood creating a rich tapestry of harmonics, color, tone, expression whatever you want to call it. That is detail. Can the music’s emotional message be conveyed without it? Perhaps, but if that sound can not be fully captured in a recording and then fully reproduced by an audio system, the experience of listening to it will not be as fulfilling, at least to me. And it will not be a convincing recreation of the way that instrument sounds live.
I can be emotionally move by listening to an old favorite Deep Purple song on my truck radio or CD player. It congers up memories and I can be lost in the moment and music. But that is not about resolution, let alone detail. It is not about believability. It is pure memory and emotion. I want something different, more immersive, more rich, and more lifelike when listening to my stereo, Deep Purple, Shirley Horn or Beethoven’s Violin Concerto.
Once heard and experienced, I want to recreate that energy of a live cello heard up close from my system in my living room. If it is close mic’d with breathing, I want to hear as much of that as possible. If it is from a further back perspective, I want to hear that. We can debate what are details, what is the fundamental, and what is the musical message. I want the full experience of what I hear in an intimate setting or one of the worlds great concert halls recreated in my room. I am surely not going to get it though my audio system in all of its glory, but that is the goal, for me. Compromises certainly exist, but to purposefully avoid gear which is “even more resolving at the frequency extremes” does not really make sense to me. I agree that gear that emphasizes certain frequencies to enhance false details should be avoided. That is not true to the recording or to the live experience.
Sure, I did not hear the conductor breathing or the pages being turned from way up back in the director’s seat, but I surely heard it from the edge of the orchestra pit. And if the mics pick it up and it remains on the recording, I want to hear it in as natural and convincing a way as I hear it live. When I hear Starker breathing during the Bach Cello Suites or Buddy Guy’s fingers plucking those strings on Folk Singer, those are the details that bring them to life in my living room. I heard the breathing and finger playing at the chamber performance in Boston, and I want to hear it in my home if it is on the recording and adds to the experience. Now, if only I could hear the instruments’ incredible energy too, in all of its colorful, nuanced, expressive richness, and sheer unadulterated volume and clarity from my system. Then, I would be making some real progress.
As this is Ron’s thread about his new system, it sure seems that the Gryphon Pendragon and American Sound AS2000 will be steps in that high resolution direction. They must certainly be components capable of reproducing any detail captured on a recording, even those at “frequency extremes”. Otherwise, why go to the effort and spend that kind of money? I suspect Ron wants high resolution portrayed in a natural and convincing way. The discussion seems to be about how much detail is needed for the sound to seem natural and convincing. Or maybe, this is really about our understanding of how the quality of sound effects our appreciation of the music.
@MikeL. Yes, more to come sir. Cant let you get too far head .
@Bonzo. Mook footers No. Mook record weight MAYBE.
@andromedaaudio. Yes, Ayon. Superb tube amplification. Funny I see no one uses the same amp in this forum except for David and Steve.
@Ron. We are waiting for you.
.@Bonzo. Mook footers No. Mook record weight MAYBE.
@andromedaaudio. Yes, Ayon. Superb tube amplification. Funny I see no one uses the same amp in this forum except for David and Steve.
@Ron. We are waiting for you.
Similar threads
