For me the bottom is perhaps the lesser of two evils and the top is just more fantastic. I do have an advantage/disadvantage of knowing the speaker amp combos involved now watching so I am trying to factor out expectation bias but there is a quality of the ‘not completely natural‘ that comes with carbon fibre and composite materials for me at times. Acrylic can be overt in this quality.
The centre of the signal can be startlingly resolved and highlighted. A highlighted cleanness and zing to the clarity overall, then there’s a slight disparate fullness at the lower edges of the signal and an emphatic gleam on the top that then trails away kind of exponentially to a damped blackness. Tbh my language isn’t really up to capturing it but holistically it is just not for me evenly resolving and there are shifts that bow and flare up through the layers of frequencies that make rightness elusive.
Resolution seems higher on the top video hence the earlier correlation with horns and yes while the tick box in criteria shows in the favour of these but holistically there’s some taint of synthetic still in both. It shows for me as a disconnect through the layers of the frequencies with a slight emphasis in the top and the bottom frequencies that makes these more pronounced and just a shade or taint of some kind of subtle plastic fantastic. The way light seems to pass through acrylic changed more (or differently) to the way it passes through glass.
I don't know either speakers or amps My first reaction on playing the bottom after the top was that the bottom was damped and showed a bit less energy. After listening to both a couple more times I agree with your comments about the frequencies and your "not completely natural" / "taint of synthesis" observations. The more I listened, the more that bothered me in a can't-quite-put-my finger-on-what's-bothering-me sort of way. I'm listening through desktop speakers so never really sure of my video-sonic observations, but for now am thinking the timbre is somehow not right - it does have something of a 'glisteny CGI colors squeezed from a tube' character. I don't know if the tube traps have anything to do with that.
What are the electronics?
edit: I'm not happy with myself critquing this fellow's system through a video
Rightly or wrongly, faced with that listening room, I would've on my own placed the Tube Traps exactly where they are placed in the second video, in my mind to neutralize those corners. If my eyes see a corner (or glass) or a cavity, my ears think they hear a reflection or a suck-out, respectively.
As Tang poignantly says, what a "twisted" ending!
I thought the first video sounded clearer/cleaner but too screechy sounding for me so it automatically flunked. (I can easily be a single issue voter.)
I preferred the tonal balance of the second video, but it sounded a bit muffled.
As a result of these impressions I assumed the second video had more Tube Traps than the first video.
I have a significant inventory of Tube Traps and Tower Slims. After Peter's experience, and David's advice, and my general drift towards "start simple and unadulterated with acoustic treatments" I have adopted a somewhat more skeptical view of Tube Traps than I used to have when I used them extensively in my listening room to "soften" corners.
I guess depending on the situation Tube Traps can be more sophisticated and nuanced and helpful than I gave them credit for. (After hearing these videos now I am glad I kept my phalanx of Tube Traps and Tower Slims.)
Kedar, are you 100% sure the only difference between the two videos is the addition of Tube Traps in the top/dark video?
Yes I preferred the second on the phone but it hides all the bass issues as phone speaker is rolled off below 500 Hz. First sounds synthetic on phone but not (comparatively) when I stream to my small speaker. Also the second on the speaker has more closed in highs, not as open
Without a video that has no tube traps in it, I’m not sure what we can conclude here? I found the timbre our frequency response on either in both videos emphasizing certain things which is why I referred to the sound is being hyped (pushy/emphasized). Others found it synthetic.
These qualities may have nothing to do with the tube traps. I find it interesting that I thought the high frequencies are way too straight in the first video and that is the video with more tube traps.
The bass has issues too.
Bonzo, You said these videos are pertinent to the discussion we’re having about room acoustics. You said you liked the sound of this system. What is your position on the subject that is supported by these two videos?
I think all we can conclude from this relatively “blind“ test is that some of us like one video and others like the other video and it seems for different reasons.
I suspect some people would like the sound of my system with tube traps more than without, and I suspect some might like Al’s system with more or fewer tube traps than he has now. In the end it seems to go back to preference.
What I wonder is how exhaustive an exercise have people gone through with seat and speaker positioning before they start adding things like tube traps to the room or changing gear because they don’t like the sound.
Ked is 100% right that the tube trap is the only addition to the WB system. The synthetic tone everyone is talking about is due to the CH DAC in my opinion.
I guess you guys would be more surprised to hear that this next two video only difference is simple switch of router. WBF favourite edge X and a linksys router.
Edge X:
Linksys:
Next one i could show video where my friend move his speaker by 1cm and the videos still shows the differences.
What I wonder is how exhaustive an exercise have people gone through with seat and speaker positioning before they start adding things like tube traps to the room or changing gear because they don’t like the sound.
I don't know either speakers or amps My first reaction on playing the bottom after the top was that the bottom was damped and showed a bit less energy. After listening to both a couple more times I agree with your comments about the frequencies and your "not completely natural" / "taint of synthesis" observations. The more I listened, the more that bothered me in a can't-quite-put-my finger-on-what's-bothering-me sort of way. I'm listening through desktop speakers so never really sure of my video-sonic observations, but for now am thinking the timbre is somehow not right - it does have something of a 'glisteny CGI colors squeezed from a tube' character. I don't know if the tube traps have anything to do with that.
What are the electronics?
edit: I'm not happy with myself critquing this fellow's system through a video
Tim I wrote these thoughts as I was hurrying off to work and on reflection I didn’t intend them to be heavily damning but just point towards an ah ha moment in understanding a familiar characteristic flavour. It is a quality I am sensitive to and relevant to me as I’m also exploring the impacts of carbon fibre in cable connectors at the moment.
My preference to go more towards timber in speaker design comes with its own constraints and characteristic nature.
I also am realising some definition on hearing it emerge for me as a quality highlighted by the videos but then mainly built on recollections of experiences from auditioning a few of the speakers some time back. These are nuances and shades of characters perhaps. It likely is not just the material but also the cocktail of components that further contribute to shape/amplify that outcome.
Without a video that has no tube traps in it, I’m not sure what we can conclude here? I found the timbre our frequency response on either in both videos emphasizing certain things which is why I referred to the sound is being hyped (pushy/emphasized). Others found it synthetic.
These qualities may have nothing to do with the tube traps. I find it interesting that I thought the high frequencies are way too straight in the first video and that is the video with more tube traps.
The bass has issues too.
Bonzo, You said these videos are pertinent to the discussion we’re having about room acoustics. You said you liked the sound of this system. What is your position on the subject that is supported by these two videos?
I think all we can conclude from this relatively “blind“ test is that some of us like one video and others like the other video and it seems for different reasons.
I suspect some people would like the sound of my system with tube traps more than without, and I suspect some might like Al’s system with more or fewer tube traps than he has now. In the end it seems to go back to preference.
What I wonder is how exhaustive an exercise have people gone through with seat and speaker positioning before they start adding things like tube traps to the room or changing gear because they don’t like the sound.
I always do a rather exhaustive speaker and seat positioning because I have never used room treatments. Maybe I have been fortunate with rooms but I manage to get quite good sound without once I have got the speakers and the seat in the right place.
Ked is 100% right that the tube trap is the only addition to the WB system. The synthetic tone everyone is talking about is due to the CH DAC in my opinion.
Since we are comparing videos again, I thought I would add two from my system. The first has been posted before. It is Scheherazade conducted by Mehta on Decca on the SME V-12/Grand Cru. The second is the same recording, same iPhone, but on the SME 3012R/Grand Cru. The only trick is that one hears the crackling from the fireplace, but I have not lit the logs yet. I'm curious if people can hear a difference between the videos. They were taken a few months apart, so the volume is not matched.
the first video is so much superior to the second. In your previous compare videos, I was one of the rare ones who had preferred the 3012r marginally, but those were different carts? Here the SME V is superior by quite a margin. The dynamic swings, low to high flow, is so much better. The 3012r sounds flat and boring in comparison. I heard twice, second time in reverse order. First time I increased the volume on the second video, second time I lowered the volume on the first video. First was quite superior. Much more drama, steady flow, musical message.
Btw, I have been excited by both with the vdh in different rooms though. Leif's friend had the SME V with master signature on the basic Avid model, it was so much better than his other tables that included a Garrard, Bergmann Galder with three arms and carts. He mentioned that whichever table he puts the SME V and vdh on sounds better.
Peter, in retrospect, it would have been better if you gave a longer video of the 3012r similar to the SME V. The very first notes, 3012r is slightly better but these can be set up related as both arms might have it a bit different. A lot of excitement on the V is on the latter half
Peter, in retrospect, it would have been better if you gave a longer video of the 3012r similar to the SME V. The very first notes, 3012r is slightly better but these can be set up related as both arms might have it a bit different. A lot of excitement on the V is on the latter half
Some people do prefer longer videos for more varied content, but they take time to make and to upload. I will work on it perhaps with some other music: Braham's Piano, Dvorak's Cello or Beethoven's Violin concertos. Level matched and 5-6 minutes with better lighting. We'll see.
I agree that getting both arms optimally set up is a challenge. I don't have the expertise of some others to know that that is not a factor here. These are only for fun comparisons. I would certainly want to hear the system live before concluding too much. They are simply quick YouTube videos. However, they do inform.
My point when showing these again in the recent discussion context was to demonstrate that my small room does not need the Tube Traps and other acoustic treatment to show a decent sound and that differences can indeed be heard. If the cartridge set up explains some of the differences, who would have thought a stupid YouTube video could be used to show that? Such videos can generate discussion and learning.
My point is videos should be round about equal in length. The violin tone of 3012 is bit better and from 1:30ish onwards drama and scale of SME V is much more, but the 3012r ends at 2:30 and longer video would have helped confirm or deny that part
Since we are comparing videos again, I thought I would add two from my system. The first has been posted before. It is Scheherazade conducted by Mehta on Decca on the SME V-12/Grand Cru. The second is the same recording, same iPhone, but on the SME 3012R/Grand Cru. The only trick is that one hears the crackling from the fireplace, but I have not lit the logs yet. I'm curious if people can hear a difference between the videos. They were taken a few months apart, so the volume is not matched.
Of the videos I've listened to here, (and I haven't listened to all of them) the sound quality on these is at another level. No doubt this recording is a 1%'er. So that helps a lot!
That being said, I don't hear any negative influence of the room in Peter's videos. Everything just sounds right-- "Natural" if you will. Many of the other videos I've heard here have room/system colorations that get in the way of the music and remind me that hifi is artificial.
Avoiding artificial and finding natural is a good path to follow in this audio pursuit.
Of the videos I've listened to here, (and I haven't listened to all of them) the sound quality on these is at another level. No doubt this recording is a 1%'er. So that helps a lot!
That being said, I don't hear any negative influence of the room in Peter's videos. Everything just sounds right-- "Natural" if you will. Many of the other videos I've heard here have room/system colorations that get in the way of the music and remind me that hifi is artificial.
Avoiding artificial and finding natural is a good path to follow in this audio pursuit.
Thank you Wil. I agree this is an excellent recording. I posted this latest round of videos specifically because of our recent discussion about natural sound and room acoustics.
I am pleased that you can hear the quality of natural sound come through on these iPhone system videos. We can have disagreements about particular differences in these two videos but the overall impression is one of a less hyped hifi sound and a more overall natural sound.
I trust visitors will have a similar impression, though I have had some audiophile friends from the Boston Group who did not real like the sound after the recent changes. One in particular liked the sound from a year ago much better when I still had all of the room treatments in place and the speakers were pointed at the listener.
It is about enjoyment and preference and I’m glad that some of these qualities come through on the videos.
