Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

Great report, Al! One day I hope to visit Ron and experience this system.

Come on over, Ian! By then we might even have a door in the guestroom!

 

[brad225]

Listening to you speak of being moved, by A Lighter Shade of Pale brought back memories of listening to that years ago when my systems were not that resolving. It definitely has the ability to draw out emotions.

In the last 10 years, though I am very extremely fond of the song it is painful to play in my listening room so I don't, as often as I would prefer.

Have your ever heard a digital, aka- CD or streaming that is better than the original CD?

Thanks Brad

 

[morricab]

Thank you very much for taking all the time to write this very detailed, insightful and comprehensive visit report, Al! I know you have a great deal of experience on the sound of acoustic instruments. You know what to listen for in acoustic instruments and can perceive nuance that is literally beyond my recollections of live concert experiences. That's why I was so thrilled that you seemed to like the system!

You now have had the second most visitor ear time on the system, after David Blumenstein who spent over 20 hours in front of the system over eight days.

Honestly, I anticipated before your visit that you would not like the system in certain big ways. I know how sensitive you are to driver discontinuity. I don't hear driver discontinuity between the towers, but I never have been sensitive to driver discontinuity. (How many people owned Martin-Logan Monoliths?)

I assumed the discontinuity was there, and I just wasn't hearing it, or I wasn't consciously bothered by it. So for you to find no material driver discontinuity between the different topology towers was quite a wonderful surprise to me.

I'm glad we experienced Beethoven's Ninth Symphony together, from start to finish! I never had heard the entire performance before on a stereo in one sitting. (On these big classical pieces Kedar always told me to just head straight for the finales -- drop the stylus on the last inch of the record. But on this symphony my favorite movement actually was the first movement.)

Thank you, especially, for the critiques. When people visit I suggest to them that only criticism helps me move the system forward sonically.

I agree that the lower midrange ideally could use a little more oomph. I'm still thinking about replacing the tubes in the amps with KR Audio KT-88s. Also, the more I can eliminate the room boom issue, the slightly higher I can raise the woofer level -- which will tend to fill in and plump up the lower midrange. A third AVAA is on its way.

Yes, less than continuously full ooomph in the lower midrange probably is the weakest sonic attribute of the system. There is just no way to replicate fully with two different topologies (maybe especially at the cross-over point) the oomph of the driver surface area of dynamic drivers chained continuously throughout that frequency range.

Many of us say this -- because it is true -- and it is fine to repeat: yes, we all like the music and we revere the components, but the highest joy for me in this hobby is the camaraderie of the hobby and enjoying the music with friends. Thank you for visiting!

One discrepancy I am finding from your descriptions is your talk about a lower center of gravity and yet the admitted weakness is the lack of umph in the lower mids. That would suggest a higher COG than perhaps you or others want. This might enhance a sense of transparency but with the obvious trade off.

The only way to elelviate the lower mid weakness is a higher xo point for the planar driver as I mentioned a ways back in this thread. I found a xo of 300Hz takes care of it. The BG planar just doesn’t have the excursion to handle the lower mid with the same dynamics. Changing tubes won’t do it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A [Whiter] Shade of Pale brought back memories of . . . It definitely has the ability to draw out emotions.

In the last 10 years, though I am very extremely fond of the song it is painful to play in my listening room so I don't, as often as I would prefer.

What emotions does this song evoke from you? I ask because the lyrics are abstract and cryptic . . .

 

[Salectric]

Great report @Al M. I was able to get a good impression of how Ron’s system sounds as well as how I would react to it if I had been there listening with you. That’s the hallmark of a good review.

 

[brad225]

I think, that for me, though I could sing lyrics along with the song, though I don't. The musical score is what is the most emotional moving thing for me.

I guess the songs sounds like a tortured life that was full of mostly unhappy experiences. Even with that he seems to draw some happiness from it all.
I would not say it is tearful but definitely leans in that direction.

I agree the lyrics are very abstract.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think, that for me, though I could sing lyrics along with the song, though I don't. The musical score is what is the most emotional moving thing for me.

I guess the songs sounds like a tortured life that was full of mostly unhappy experiences. Even with that he seems to draw some happiness from it all.
I would not say it is tearful but definitely leans in that direction.

I agree the lyrics are very abstract.

Thank you!

 

[PeterA]

...

To my ears, the vinyl was the most nervous and restless sounding of the sources.The direct drive of the Denon turntable may have contributed to that impression, as it perhaps micro-corrects all the time for constant speed, with permanent "jerking" back and forth as result. This lack of relaxedness became quite clear in a direct comparison of Carol King's Tapestry album on tape and on vinyl. It's not a great recording to begin with, but Ron thought on tape it sounded the best he has ever heard it.

Was the system perfect? No, nothing is, and everything is a compromise to some extent. The system does lack some oomph in the low midrange, for example on the baritone sax in the Lee Morgan track mentioned before, or also on orchestral trombones. The low brass opening of Scheherazade, addictively transparent as it was, lacked some weight. Yet every system is a personal choice, and for Ron evidently the high transparency on vocals, and otherwise, is worth the tradeoff. Really well done, Ron!

Thank you Al for this balanced report. I find it is always interesting to see what one likes less about a system and how it can possibly be improved. I have a very similar Denon turntable to Ron's, perhaps not quite as good. I do not hear that sense of nervousness or restlessness. I wonder instead if it has something to do with the way it is set up or ancillary gear, perhaps the arm. Is this distinct from what Ron reports as a slight brightness in vinyl playback? Of course, at some point Ron will be getting his new turntable/arm and it will likely sound quite different.

Was this "oomph in the low midrange" noticeable on all three sources? I would not expect that from those LF towers. That weight, sense of mass, heard from real instruments is something I find quite elusive in many presentations. I suspect Ron will figure it out, perhaps with more trials with speaker and listening seat positions.

 

[cjfrbw]

I guess the songs sounds like a tortured life that was full of mostly unhappy experiences. Even with that he seems to draw some happiness from it all.
I would not say it is tearful but definitely leans in that direction.

I agree the lyrics are very abstract.

Heard it live in Santa Monica from Procol Harum in the day. As usual, much better in the live rendition.

 

[cjfrbw]

only way to elelvate the lower mid weakness is a higher xo point for the planar driver as I mentioned a ways back in this thread. I found a xo of 300Hz takes care of it. The BG planar just doesn’t have the excursion to handle the lower mid with the same dynamics. Changing tubes won’t do it.

Some of the BG students from the day thought that the crossover should be 600 or so, less or no baffle required. However, anything above 200 Hz and the seamless rendition of having a single driver across the whole upper bass and midrange can be compromised (vocals).

300 Hz is nice because it theoretically doesn't need baffle and includes 'enough' going down from the crossover point. That's where I have my particular ribbons and it seems to work well. I did notice that 300 Hz sounded better than 350 Hz crossover by a bit. I don't think the midrange weight is too compromised, but an Apogee type panel from 80 Hz to 300 Hz might sound lovely.

 

[morricab]

Some of the BG students from the day thought that the crossover should be 600 or so, less or no baffle required. However, anything above 200 Hz and the seamless rendition of having a single driver across the whole upper bass and midrange can be compromised (vocals).

300 Hz is nice because it theoretically doesn't need baffle and includes 'enough' going down from the crossover point. That's where I have my particular ribbons and it seems to work well. I did notice that 300 Hz sounded better than 350 Hz crossover by a bit. I don't think the midrange weight is too compromised, but an Apogee type panel from 80 Hz to 300 Hz might sound lovely.

I found 300 worked best with mine

 

[Ron Resnick]

Gryphon Pendragon Loudspeakers -- The Arrival!

Please subscribe to the What's Best Forum YouTube channel!

 

[SlapEcho]

That was short but fun. Thank you!

 

[cjfrbw]

There had to be at least one smooshed dead body in there, but you won't show that, will you?

 

[Ron Resnick]

There had to be at least one smooshed dead body in there, but you won't show that, will you?

Sssshh!

 

[KeithR]

Was this "oomph in the low midrange" noticeable on all three sources? I would not expect that from those LF towers. That weight, sense of mass, heard from real instruments is something I find quite elusive in many presentations. I suspect Ron will figure it out, perhaps with more trials with speaker and listening seat positions.

Can try moving the speakers closer together.

 

[Amir]

Kevin Scott from Living Voice UK :


The room is always a significant part of the sound. Only part of what you hear comes directly from the speakers, and the rest is the reverberant field of the room. The sound characteristic of the reverberant field is dictated first by the 'off-axis' behaviour of the speaker, and then by the dimensions and materials that the room is made of and its' contents. There is a complicated science to this - almost unfathomably complicated so an academic approach is best left to professional acousticians - and in my experience they usually revert to the best approach which is intuition with trial and error. Experience obviously helps.


A common mistake is to attack the situation with purely absorptive, deadening room treatment. These invariably operate over a wide bandwidth so that whilst they subdue your target problematic frequency range, they also subdue everything else as well and kill the life and space and freedom in the sound-world.


Sound can be absorbed, reflected, or diffused…the latter two usually bring the results you seek.


Bass traps in the corners can be useful 'IF' there is a bass / standing wave problem. I have heard them make some rooms worse, tread cautiously and make one step at a time.


Put them in and then take them out and see how this feels. Back corners are as effective as front corners, you do not necessarily need to treat all of them. Dealing with mid and HF emphasis or confusion is best done using scattering and diffusion. This is why when we do an exhibition in an unknown room, we like to get there a day or so early to let the system settle down and then we can pay attention to how the room behaves with scattering and diffusion.


Your room has the first reflected wave off the floor damped by a rug. This is usually my first listening experiment and only rarely have I thought it detracted. Usually everything improves.


The glass between and behind the speakers is a nice thing to have. In rooms with heavy drapes, I usually find much better spatial coherence with the drapes left open. It is probably good to experiment with some scattering and absorption at the back of the room as well as in the back corners. Not bass traps but reflective and 'scattery' surfaces angled across the corners such as book cases, LP and CD storage. Acoustic phase arrays that are relatively deeply pocketed…deeper than the phase arrays that you see at the sides of rooms can be very useful and look nice. Inexpensive as well.

Romy The Cat idea about Room Acoustics:

I do not believe in acoustic treatment for low frequency, unless you do monumental architectural changes in your room. The existing acoustic treatments do very unproportional treatment as very effective and a higher frequency. So, when you use them to treat your 100 Hertz they make reverberation time at 1000 cycles much shorter than you would like it to be as they're much more effective at higher frequencies. So, for 10% of correction 100 Hertz you create 300% damage at 1kHz. To treat some corners, VERY moderately it still might be OK but it is about it. My approach to dealing with the problem like this is very different and I I have written a lot about it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Romy The Cat idea about Room Acoustics:

I do not believe in acoustic treatment for low frequency, unless you do monumental architectural changes in your room. The existing acoustic treatments do very unproportional treatment as very effective and a higher frequency. So, when you use them to treat your 100 Hertz they make reverberation time at 1000 cycles much shorter than you would like it to be as they're much more effective at higher frequencies. So, for 10% of correction 100 Hertz you create 300% damage at 1kHz. To treat some corners, VERY moderately it still might be OK but it is about it. My approach to dealing with the problem like this is very different and I I have written a lot about it.

Hello Amir,

This excerpt is so dogmatic and vague it is almost meaningless.

1) There are many different types of acoustic treatment devices, many different tools for this job. Which particular low frequency acoustic treatment is he talking about?

2) Where does he get his 10% and 300% numbers from? These numbers seem to be made up, especially as he is not talking specifically about a particular acoustic treatment device.

3) The most basic, ubiquitous bass absorber acoustic treatment device is an ASC TubeTrap. Here is the frequency response for the basic TubeTrap:




Please tell us how his 10% and 300% figures apply to this device.

4) The PSI AVAA affects frequencies below 100Hz and has no effect effect at 1kHz and above. So the statement is plainly and entirely false with respect to this acoustic treatment device.

In summary, this is a dogmatic, unprofessional and very incomplete (to put it gently) statement.

 

[PeterA]

Ron, have you taken a new set of measurements with your new acoustic treatments in place?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, have you taken a new set of measurements with your new acoustic treatments in place?

no; I am waiting for the third AVAA