SAT Direct Drive Turntable!

[Ron Resnick]

Ron,

there is also the build dilemma of aspiring to have perfectly quiet (absence of any sound) circuits with a zero load, but the best performing one's are not necessarily that way. with a load their musically significant noise level is very, very low, allowing the music to be unfettered, but with no load and your ear to the tweeter you hear something.

which is more 'natural'? dynamic or static blackness? does the process of eliminating static zero noise, strangle part of the musical flow and ambience?

and pardon me if as a non techie my words are not conveying what my mind is attempting to.

for myself, how my system sounds with zero load is not that relevant (within limits). most visitors do view my system as quiet....as do i.

I agree. I ineluctably have to agree given that I accept the noise of an all tube phono stage.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Ron with respect to
1, I don´t consider the "noise" from people in a concert hall as noise, but part of the event that takes place
2A is critical and even harder to accomplish in a high eff hornsystem
the lower A, the more prominent B
just my 2 cents

 

[ddk]

I have read the last couple of pages of posts, and I cannot tease out what are the views in contention. As is very often the case I think some of the debate arises from a failure to define terms, and to agree on the definitions.

I think:

1) There are different ambient background levels. The ambient background noise in a concert hall filled with people will be a lot higher than the ambient background noise in a recording studio.

2) The inherent sonic "blackness" of a stereo system reflects the cumulative noise signatures of the electronic components, and is different than the pre-music playing ambient sound of a live venue once the recording "starts." I think we hear this in three stages:

A) the noise level of a stereo system when you turn up the volume with no source playing

B) the ambient background sound level after the source is initiated (listening to vinyl lead-in grooves) but before the music starts (needle begins tracing musical waveforms)

C) the difference in sound between B) and the reproduction of the musical performance

3) I think the concept of signal to noise ratio is relevant and makes sense. Whatever "blackness" you are contrasting with music playing inevitably reflects a signal-to-noise ratio.

4) I think the idea that hearing the same blackness across recordings is a coloration may or may not make sense. A) above is going to remain constant.

What are the differences of opinion on this?

Where does the concept of "faux black coloration" come into play in the above framework?

Dear Ron,

Black is a color it doesn't mean low noise or quiet. A black background is a creation and a coloration but lack of electronic or mechanical noise isn't one and we shouldn't confuse the two.

There's ambience and background noise in empty space too, you don't need audience in a hall for ambience the space has it's own quality that you can hear. With decent recordings and a low coloration system with enough resolution you'll clearly hear the difference in ambience in each recording.

david

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

to me phono quiet is when I can have arm lifted, open riaa input, full throttle into my 112db horn system, and it´s absolutely no hiss or noise.....

 

[thedudeabides]

What's amusing is you seem to imply my observation is a criticism. Is it?

Yes.

 

[ddk]

Text books on stereo need full chapters describing it. Briefly in one sentence simple stereo has no capability to create a real image besides a line between the two speakers. The sound field of stereo is completely different from the sound field of real instruments. In order to create an illusion similar to reality sound engineers have to manipulate the signal. BTW, as far as I see binaural is the closest think to a non manipulated signal and surely fails when reproduced in stereo systems. We learn a lot about stereo caracteristics when reading from people who develop and analyze binaural - they are not objectively kind to them!

Different stereo microphone techniques manipulate the signal differently, both in time and spectral properties.

I highly recommend early mono recordings including shellac 78s in a proper setup and you'll hear the space and ambience in many of them if stereo's your concern.

Yes recording equipment have their own characters too but in spite of all that there are many wonderful extremely realistic and natural recordings. I spent over 4 years with the great George Walker recording him playing his own music in his own home studio using a variety of vintage and modern microphones and his Nagra tape deck. We played back the masters on his system and on my systems, reproduction was almost 1:1, it's a total fallacy that recordings are all distortions of reality. We also did live sessions of his music in halls with other musicians, the recording captured it all as real and natural as the performance itself. I sat through the mastering of these recordings too and the way down the chain to the physical CDs. The only time there was clear loss of was during downsampling to 44/16 but there was no major distortion or manipulation of tone and harmonics or anything else for that matter. I have similar experiences sitting through several sessions with Dave Chesky and his final products. Recording can be an exacting art, depends on the artist. You can't shift all blame on recordings and not blame the reproduction setup for all the playback distortions. IME that's were the problem lies in these conversations.

david

 

[tima]

My questions definitely implied that your observation was a criticism.

I felt that your observation implied a criticism. Did it?

Ron, I've been writing on the topic of references and the basis of preference for some time now - at least across the course of a year. Some of that has been repetitive so I haven't been shy about it and I think I've been fairly consistent. I'll be the first to admit that my coming to grips with these issues is a work in progress but I've created enough of a framework for discussion to take place - or so I believe. Whether you've read or paid attention to any of that, or remember it, I suppose not - otherwise you'd know the answer to your question.

So, I've done my work on this and I'm disinclined to make a personal performance for you even though you're shooting at my feet. You can read anything you want into my words, but from my speaker/writer's perspective your interpretation is flat wrong. And my prior writing on the topic is my proof.

So I will do this for you and if you care enough to read, please do, but mind the order may not be chronological (the WBF search does not do that) so you'll need to read first, then conclude:

... For each their choice is right; to regard differently is the ground for audiophiles arguing on a forum. ...

Like the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 where the Pope divided the world between the Empires of Spain and Portugal*, I have divided the audiophile world between the Synthesists and the Naturalists - two fundamental bases of preference. ...

We don't get to say "your preferences are wrong." ...

... The characterization of each camp does nothing to thwart either from satisfaction and music enjoyment.

...
Like it or not, the persistence and perptuation of the Holt-Pearson language is a marker of its acceptance for describing what a successful hi-end stereo should sound like. ...

I could go on ... Hopefully those are sufficient for an understanding of where I've come to on the topic of references and the basis of preference. My views apply broadly and single out no one.

 

[microstrip]

I have read the last couple of pages of posts, and I cannot tease out what are the views in contention. As is very often the case I think some of the debate arises from a failure to define terms, and to agree on the definitions.

I think:

1) There are different ambient background levels. The ambient background noise in a concert hall filled with people will be a lot higher than the ambient background noise in a recording studio.

Yes, but I can't see how it is relevant to the discussion.

2) The inherent sonic "blackness" of a stereo system reflects the cumulative noise signatures of the electronic components, and is different than the pre-music playing ambient sound of a live venue once the recording "starts."

Noise is definitively something with a precise meaning - a random signal with a spectral distribution. Unfortunately it is not possible to correlate "black blackground" with audio noise. This implies we should look elsewhere. And yes, it "blackness" of stereo can not be mixed with reality.

I think we hear this in three stages:

A) the noise level of a stereo system when you turn up the volume with no source playing

This is just audio noise.

B) the ambient background sound level after the source is initiated (listening to vinyl lead-in grooves) but before the music starts (needle begins tracing musical waveforms)

No, this is not "black background" - it is just vinyl noise that can add some spaciousness, but IMHO is a not welcome artifact.

C) the difference in sound between B) and the reproduction of the musical performance

3) I think the concept of signal to noise ratio is relevant and makes sense. Whatever "blackness" you are contrasting with music playing inevitably reflects a signal-to-noise ratio.

In such case tape or vinyl would be an inferior media to digital and IMHO their are not in terms of "black background".

4) I think the idea that hearing the same blackness across recordings is a coloration may or may not make sense. A) above is going to remain constant.

What are the differences of opinion on this?

Where does the concept of "faux black coloration" come into play in the above framework?

IMHO "black backgrounds" are created by an absence of particular artifacts and enhancement of some particular details. And no system will create them similarly in all recordings - it just lets recordings sound more enjoyable if you are trained to appreciate it.

 

[microstrip]

I highly recommend early mono recordings including shellac 78s in a proper setup and you'll hear the space and ambience in many of them if stereo's your concern.

Surely. But this does not add anything to what is being discussed, except noting that the sound field of mono is also very different from the sound field of reality-

Yes recording equipment have their own characters too but in spite of all that there are many wonderful extremely realistic and natural recordings. I spent over 4 years with the great George Walker recording him playing his own music in his own home studio using a variety of vintage and modern microphones and his Nagra tape deck. We played back the masters on his system and on my systems, reproduction was almost 1:1, it's a total fallacy that recordings are all distortions of reality. We also did live sessions of his music in halls with other musicians, the recording captured it all as real and natural as the performance itself. I sat through the mastering of these recordings too and the way down the chain to the physical CDs. The only time there was clear loss of was during downsampling to 44/16 but there was no major distortion or manipulation of tone and harmonics or anything else for that matter. I have similar experiences sitting through several sessions with Dave Chesky and his final products. Recording can be an exacting art, depends on the artist. You can't shift all blame on recordings and not blame the reproduction setup for all the playback distortions. IME that's were the problem lies in these conversations.

david

No David, recordings are a controlled and intelligent distortion of the real signal (the variations of air pressure). Otherwise you would never say that the recording captured the reality. A great sound engineer is just someone who knows how to carry it. If it was just to repeat the same conditions everyone would do it the same way with easiness. Why did George Martin own and use different microphones? Surely to capture the real pressure waveforms with different distortions, picking the one that created the reproduction that he felt approached more the perception of reality.

Do you agree that the sound field created by two speakers is extremely different from the real event?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron with respect to
1, I don´t consider the "noise" from people in a concert hall as noise, but part of the event that takes place
2A is critical and even harder to accomplish in a high eff hornsystem
the lower A, the more prominent B
just my 2 cents

I understand. I don't disagree.

I was analogizing the lead-in grooves to the reproduction of music as ambient audience noise is to the playing of the live performance.

 

[ddk]

Surely. But this does not add anything to what is being discussed, except noting that the sound field of mono is also very different from the sound field of reality-

No David, recordings are a controlled and intelligent distortion of the real signal (the variations of air pressure). Otherwise you would never say that the recording captured the reality. A great sound engineer is just someone who knows how to carry it. If it was just to repeat the same conditions everyone would do it the same way with easiness. Why did George Martin own and use different microphones? Surely to capture the real pressure waveforms with different distortions, picking the one that created the reproduction that he felt approached more the perception of reality.

I see good recordings as representations not distortions. Like a good portrait the essence of the performance is preserved. George Walker (not Michael) was an incredible talent and had a passion for high end and reproduction, the recordings were all extremely close to reality. He used different mics like a photographer would use different lenses, not to distort but to convey what's there best.

Do you agree that the sound field created by two speakers is extremely different from the real event?

I'm assuming that by sound field you mean the sonic bubble that speakers create in the room, if that's what you're talking about I would say it depends. If your argument is that since nothing is 1:1 then it's all a distortion then there's nothing to talk about. IME there's enough information in recordings to recreate a believable and realistic sound field and recreate the venue close to original. Certainly the difference in locations where the event occurred and where it's being reproduced will influence the sound field but in both instances there's a sound bubble and you're dealing with sound waves, our bodies react in the same manner to those waves irrespective if they're created by a speaker or by a person, sound waves are sound waves. What you hear within the sound field at a venue is very much dependent on your seat, the environment of both the listener and that of the source, the same is true in a listening room. You can set up the system to create a sonic bubble into the room or mostly behind the speakers, it's the first step in addressing the sound field. There are ambient and spacial information embedded in many recordings it's possible to recreate a credible believable reproduction of the original venue in the listening room, if you know what you're doing.

david

 

[microstrip]

I see good recordings as representations not distortions. Like a good portrait the essence of the performance is preserved. George Walker (not Michael) was an incredible talent and had a passion for high end and reproduction, the recordings were all extremely close to reality. He used different mics like a photographer would use different lenses, not to distort but to convey what's there best.

I only addressed physical signals, you insist on moving the discussion to generic aspects of recordings. But thanks for your analogy - it proves my point. Distortion is not a pejorative word in audio, although people seem to fear it. But when a becomes altered we have distortion.

I'm assuming that by sound field you mean the sonic bubble that speakers create in the room, if that's what you're talking about I would say it depends. If your argument is that since nothing is 1:1 then it's all a distortion then there's nothing to talk about. IME there's enough information in recordings to recreate a believable and realistic sound field and recreate the venue close to original. Certainly the difference in locations where the event occurred and where it's being reproduced will influence the sound field but in both instances there's a sound bubble and you're dealing with sound waves, our bodies react in the same manner to those waves irrespective if they're created by a speaker or by a person, sound waves are sound waves. What you hear within the sound field at a venue is very much dependent on your seat, the environment of both the listener and that of the source, the same is true in a listening room. You can set up the system to create a sonic bubble into the room or mostly behind the speakers, it's the first step in addressing the sound field. There are ambient and spacial information embedded in many recordings it's possible to recreate a credible believable reproduction of the original venue in the listening room, if you know what you're doing.

david

No, sonic field was never "the sonic bubble" in audio science. Sorry I am now out our discussion - it is not possible to discuss aspects that are mostly technical using a dubious wording used in a free way by a minority that expresses themselves on variations of "natural" and "energy" - my apologies for disturbing your way and thanks for the nice examples you presented.

 

[ddk]

I only addressed physical signals, you insist on moving the discussion to generic aspects of recordings. But thanks for your analogy - it proves my point. Distortion is not a pejorative word in audio, although people seem to fear it. But when a becomes altered we have distortion.


No, sonic field was never "the sonic bubble" in audio science. Sorry I am now out our discussion - it is not possible to discuss aspects that are mostly technical using a dubious wording used in a free way by a minority that expresses themselves on variations of "natural" and "energy" - my apologies for disturbing your way and thanks for the nice examples you presented.

What can I say Franciso after 35 years designing and manufacturing high end ultra luxury products worldwide, building and running manufacturing and not how to communicate with a university professor. Google sonic field and read all the technical information you want, let's hope it will help you with your next attempt at a system.

http://www.syntheticwave.de/Sound and Room.htm

david

 

[Direct Drive]

So if you would like to add vacuum platter to your Sp10r or SAT or any deck for that matter (if it doesn’t come with it), you could use the below for £995:

I-Qual Vacuum Disc Mate IQ1300A

No more wobbly records Vacuum stabilizer Operational video here. More information and manual here. Review here.

www.mcru.co.uk

Sorry off thread (I will start a new one if anyone is interested). Well I've taken the plunge and ordered one from France... better price. So will see how well it works.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I've been writing on the topic of references and the basis of preference for some time now - at least across the course of a year. Some of that has been repetitive so I haven't been shy about it and I think I've been fairly consistent. I'll be the first to admit that my coming to grips with these issues is a work in progress but I've created enough of a framework for discussion to take place - or so I believe. Whether you've read or paid attention to any of that, or remember it, I suppose not - otherwise you'd know the answer to your question.

So, I've done my work on this and I'm disinclined to make a personal performance for you even though you're shooting at my feet. You can read anything you want into my words, but from my speaker/writer's perspective your interpretation is flat wrong. And my prior writing on the topic is my proof.

So I will do this for you and if you care enough to read, please do, but mind the order may not be chronological (the WBF search does not do that) so you'll need to read first, then conclude:












I could go on ... Hopefully those are sufficient for an understanding of where I've come to on the topic of references and the basis of preference. My views apply broadly and single out no one.

Thank you, Tim!

I apologize for reading what I thought mistakenly was an implication into your observation!

 

[TooCool4]

Direct Drive let us know what you think when you get the unit. But I have to say it looks a bit pricy for what it is and I don't see myself buying one. Still interesting.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

so EUR 34K for a SAT addon is ok, but < than 1K for something that basically does the same is pricey?
how´s that possible

 

[Direct Drive]

Direct Drive let us know what you think when you get the unit. But I have to say it looks a bit pricy for what it is and I don't see myself buying one. Still interesting

700€ posted to UK. 650€ posted if you are on the mainland. So better than the £995. I will give feedback.

 

[microstrip]

so EUR 34K for a SAT addon is ok, but < than 1K for something that basically does the same is pricey?
how´s that possible

IMHO "basically does the same" does not apply in the high-end. We pay a lot just to avoid "basically doing the same"!

 

[TooCool4]

so EUR 34K for a SAT addon is ok, but < than 1K for something that basically does the same is pricey?
how´s that possible

Show me where I said SAT addon is okay at €34K ?