Sublime Sound

[PeterA]

Vlad, I will leave the technical explanations to you and to Shunyata. I do not understand the whys and the hows.

It is fascinating to me, though, that three people recently compared the two power cords in my system and all preferred one over the other. I happen to think that the one we preferred allowed the music to sound more realistic. I cited the balance of tone and location of instruments on the stage as two specific observations. Were such a report shared by you, I would not question it with the vigor and veracity that you and Tasos are displaying. The two of you seem to think that the three of us preferred the CC cords because they somehow introduce more noise into the system and that the Shunyata is somehow revealing system issues downstream in my system. Frankly, I don't follow your thinking.

You keep coming back to my "tight" and extended bass comment. When I listen to timpani, kettle drums, cello, stand up bass, I do not hear "tightness". I hear the hollowness of the instruments bodies, the looseness of the strings, the resonance of everything. The sound is full, often "fat". Not thin lacking body and overtones. When these instruments gets too focused and tight, or they miraculously move forward in the soundstage and with a spotlight on them, it does not sound right to me. This realism is the result of natural resolution, not the introduction of more noise into the system which hides or covers over system flaws. That makes no sense to me.

I was scheduled to visit you last March until the virus hit and our get together was cancelled. Perhaps if the virus one day subsides, and I am invited back to hear your system or Tasos' system, I will happily bring my CC cords for you to try in your respective systems. They do not need time to settle and can simply be plugged in. We will know quickly whether or not you like them. We could then discuss what we hear and why and how the cords may be affecting the sound. Until then, I think we will just have to respectfully disagree. You can enjoy your cords not having heard the CC in your system, and I will continue to enjoy my choices based on direct comparisons in my system context.

Do you not agree that we should celebrate the fact that we both are enjoying the sounds of our systems and the choices we have made?

 

[VLS]

Why do you think bass will be first to go if shrinking wire size?

My assumption that the bass will be reduced is an extrapolation from my experience in the other direction: doubling the effective AWG by going from one to two dedicated lines for an otherwise unchanged system improved the bass (along with a number of other attributes).

And I don't necessarily assert that bass will go 'first', just that it will eventually go.

If you think this is an incorrect extrapolation I'm wholly open to hearing an alternative view.

 

[VLS]

You keep coming back to my "tight" and extended bass comment. When I listen to timpani, kettle drums, cello, stand up bass, I do not hear "tightness".

That was a direct quote from your earlier post: "... the bass quality ... was more extended and tighter with your [Shunyata] cords...". But if you actually do not hear tight bass then the whole thing is moot.

And certainly no "virosity" on my part. I am really just trying to understand and tease apart what is going on - otherwise it's impossible, at least for me, to generalize these reports into useful cross-system learnings.

As far as vigor goes, is that something bad?

 

[PeterA]

That was a direct quote from your earlier post: "... the bass quality ... was more extended and tighter with your [Shunyata] cords...". But if you actually do not hear tight bass then the whole thing is moot.

And certainly no "virosity" on my part. I am really just trying to understand and tease apart what is going on - otherwise it's impossible, at least for me, to generalize these reports into useful cross-system learnings.

As far as vigor goes, is that something bad?

Vlad, vigor is fine. But the effort with which you and Tasos seem to question my observations (and those of Al and Ian), seems excessive. This is not some dedicated thread about power cord design. It is simply my sharing of what two friends and I heard one afternoon while we did a cord comparison. You can question our observations, I can try to explain in more detail what I mean, and then we are left where exactly? You reference your experience with different cords in a different system, and try to apply it to what I actually heard in my system. Now what? All the vigor just keeps us on the treadmill losing weight and away from listening.

I understand you are trying to understand and tease apart what is going on, yet you seem singularly focused on my description of the bass quality. What do you think of my description of the other sonic changes: the high frequencies becoming more accentuated and the instruments appearing to move forward and become more prominent in the mix, and the change in timbre or tonal balance? Just upstream issues with my system? That does not get us anywhere either. Are these positive attributes simply explained by increased noise introduced by a cheap Chinese power cord? How does that work? This seems to be your theory. Can I ask you to explain that so that I can better understand and tease apart what you are saying? What noise, where, and how does the noise increase the realism of spatial information from the recording, improve timbre, and make the bass sound more realistic?

As far as cross-system learnings are concerned, you can read my observations of these power cords in my system thread and then search out other reports right here on WBF from other owners and learn what they are hearing. They may not realize they like noise too. For further information, you can listen to system videos from Tang and me to tease out the effect of added noise from CC power cords. Marty also uses CC cords, though perhaps not on his amps.

 

[ack]

the effort with which you and Tasos seem to question my observations (and those of Al and Ian), seems excessive

First of all, what "effort" are you talking about - we are talking about one or two posts by me and VLS. And FWIW, I feel that 'excessive' is your repetitive nature of saying the same things over and over again in quite a few threads, with no end in sight. Recall when we said something about Spartan writing a couple of weeks ago?

What noise, where, and how does the noise increase the realism of spatial information from the recording, improve timbre, and make the bass sound more realistic?

More Realism? More Realistic? FWIW, not from this vantage point and the session we had together, with most of your latest gear in place. In fact, so far far from it

 

[Al M.]

More Realism? More Realistic? FWIW, not from this vantage point and the session we had together, with most of your latest gear in place. In fact, so far far from it

Let me repeat: The sound during that session was far from representative for what the sound of Peter's system is now. In fact, if it was similar to what I heard at the time, it was the worst sound of Peter's system. And yes, it was not realistic.

Yet things have dramatically changed since then.

This really is getting old.

 

[Folsom]

My assumption that the bass will be reduced is an extrapolation from my experience in the other direction: doubling the effective AWG by going from one to two dedicated lines for an otherwise unchanged system improved the bass (along with a number of other attributes).

And I don't necessarily assert that bass will go 'first', just that it will eventually go.

If you think this is an incorrect extrapolation I'm wholly open to hearing an alternative view.

It's not a good assumption. AC power is not an amplifier.

When AC power voltage periodically drops (the affect of too much current for something that can't support it at desired voltage; since current can't be limited within conventional wires) it's most perceptible in the higher frequencies because they're the shortest. It has a muting effect on the higher frequencies. Bass on the other hand is made of long frequencies that can't be dulled nearly as easily. Small increase/decrease in actual SPL of bass isn't very noticeable but it sure is on higher frequencies since they are done playing before the power recovers.

You can talk about bass, but it's other changes you'll hear first if there is a clear lack of power. If different cables changes the way the bass sounds it's subjective most of the time as it won't be measurable. I'd go as far as to say a lot of larger power cables just make bass sound weird, not even sure if there's more or just a lack of everything else sounding right...

 

[Folsom]

Thanks for answering my questions.

But has anyone ever measured DTCD in the wall? I'm sure Shunyata did, so why don't they publish the results? What are they afraid of?



If it's impossible, then why do Shunyata make the claim that in their cords DTCD matters?



Sure, that's why I asked you for your opinion.



Well, then Shunyata would have to come up anyway with measurements that show LPS's are influenced for the better. They don't get to wiggle out of this.



Indeed, that is a problem. Shunyata measure in isolation, standing on its own, an objective difference, so what? What does it mean? Without a context within which it is proven that it matters in the real world it is pseudo-science -- snake oil. Without providing measurements about DTCD in the wall and impact on real world power supplies they could never get their claims that their power cords matter published in a scientific journal. They would be laughed at by reviewers. So why should I trust their "scientific" data?

As a scientist myself, albeit not in this field (I am a biochemist), I know how the scientific process works. Shunyata's claims don't satisfy it.

You can make some isolated measurements, certainly. That is probably what their patents are based upon. Yet you don't get to make some measurements and then claim that they matter in the context they are claimed to matter, without backing up the claims with data.

The results may not look super impressive. But again even if you do the measurement the repeatability is basically nothing. It's not easy. Few would know there's a point to it, and the complexity simply doesn't appear worth it.

If you're Shunyata you must have something to sell... and you may like the results of what you made so you fish a little for "reasons".

There's plenty of patents on devices using measurements that simply aren't very real world useful. The claims are true for what they show.

 

[tima]

But has anyone ever measured DTCD in the wall? I'm sure Shunyata did, so why don't they publish the results? What are they afraid of?

Maybe they're afraid of you, Al !

I suspect DTCD measured at the wall varies from house to house.

Shunyata dissing aside, the company is probably the most forthcoming of all the audiophile wire vendors. Whatever is your opinion of their products, at least they tell you what is in them. Caelin Gabriel is accessible on-line or via e-mail for questions. Asking "what are they trying to hide" without first having sought information from the company adds no weight to a case.

 

[tima]

Can I be added to group emails? Sounds like fun

Peeper.

 

[PeterA]

More Realism? More Realistic? FWIW, not from this vantage point and the session we had together, with most of your latest gear in place. In fact, so far far from it

Tasos, It is clear that you and I have very different ideas about what our music systems should sound like. Our two systems have evolved quite a bit since we first met. I used to pursue what you still seem to refer to as "accuracy." In the year before Covid, the more I listened to live music, the more I realized my pursuit of "accuracy" was leading me more and more toward a system sound that seemed "hifi" to me. I felt I was losing my way pursuing more and more "accuracy". I have now changed my approach pretty radically, mostly by addressing the system/room set up and by removing audiophile accessories through simplification.

I have appreciated your candor in the past and I have considered your strong and frequent criticisms carefully as my system evolved. I now realize that we are simply pursuing completely different sounds. I welcome that and respect that, and I am reminded by our forum philosopher, @ the sound of Tao 's recent words that "we are all just works in progress".

Open sharing is invaluable, it’s important to see how we are all just works in progress.

I’ve enjoyed the long term system threads here especially and even if there’s no direct takeaway it’s good just to see how others have developed in their understanding along the way and then grown as individuals.

If it’s a deeper cultural thing where music and gear are all a part and parcel that’s even better still. Growth happens in both, surely none of us are unchanged by all this energy and activity.

You formed your current impression of my system during your visit on January 25th with Vlad. I have made the following changes to my system, all documented in this thread since your visit. As you can see, "most of your latest gear in place" is not quite accurate.

1. Five stainless steel plates under components
2. Torque wrench adjustment of my speaker cabinets
3. Removal of remaining acoustic room treatments
4. New Pass XP-32 preamp
5. Two pairs of new interconnect cables
6. New speaker cables
7. Five Ching Cheng power cords
8. Replace Furutech IEC connectors with Hubble Industrial grade outlets in DIY boxes
9. Two new vdH Colibri Grand Cru cartridges
10. Fine tuning of cartridge set up and speaker positioning

You heard my system as I was beginning to experiment and move toward a "natural" sound. I did not know what I was doing and was trying to find my way. The system was in a state of flux and not settled.

These changes since Covid came and since you were last here have resulted in a much improved sound. Some of its character now comes through on my system videos. As you continue to modify your turntable, speakers, phono amp and DAC, I will continue to investigate "natural sound" and how to achieve it. We are moving in increasingly in different directions and the resulting sounds of our respective systems will continue to diverge. We are making the choices we feel are best for us.

I hope that you continue to enjoy your system as much as I am now enjoying mine. You have my best wishes.

 

[PeterA]

Can I be added to group emails? Sounds like fun

Kedar, that is not for me to say. You should see the ones that touch on politics. Yikes.

Here is the email I wrote and sent to the Boston Group shortly after that visit in January from Tasos and Vlad. It is typical of the considered exchanges we have within the group. I feel I have benefitted from being able to hear live music with audiophile friends while also hearing and comparing our respective systems. It has led to a better understanding of how I want to evolve my system and where I want to go.

Hello Everyone,

I thought it would be easier to just send this to all of you.

I thank Vlad and Tasos for coming to Marblehead and hearing my system last Sunday. It seems Vlad liked it a bit more than Tasos did, but what I really appreciate, as always, is the candor each of us has with each other about this fascinating, and sometimes frustrating hobby. We had some disagreements and spirited discussions about the most recent sound of my system.

Tasos, in particular, did not seem to enjoy the more diffuse sound, lack of image specificity, weak center image, and perhaps subdued higher frequencies. Interestingly, there was some disagreement about the extension of the base and the quality of the highs, depending on the recording. The image specificity, both scale and location was also an area of disagreement.

We switched arm/cartridge combinations, and as I discovered hearing Al’s opinion, our opinions varied between the AirTight Supreme/V-12 to the vdH Master Sig./3012R, depending on the music. On these differences, we tended to agree with each other, though I am still not clear about which combination has deeper bass. I think the quality of the bass differs, but I’m not so sure about extension. I do agree that the latter combination sounded a bit thinner in the midrange, but we tended to agree that the former combination has better articulation and resolution.

Taking all of the comments to heart, I experimented a bit with toe-in and speaker placement. I first toed in the speakers about 5 degrees, then up to about 15 degrees. I did not like this sound. It became slightly more precise, but less distinct, and it sounded more like hifi and less natural to me. This is where I think my tastes are changing and we may disagree. I then toed them back out but moved them towards each other. First 1/2”, then 1”, then 1.5”. Here, for a total of 3” total decrease in width, the sound became more solid, with a more defined center image and better warmth and body.

I think both Tasos and Vlad seemed to prefer the midrange/lower freq of the AirTight with the articulation and highs of the Master Sig. Tasos wants to come back to hear the vdH on the V-12, which he presumes to be a much better arm. Anyway, this now sounds better. The images are still not outlines as with the toe-in, and there is still some reflected room sound, but with the speakers closer together, the listener is a bit more on axis, (similar to a slight toe-in), the center image is more solid and defined, the highs are clearer and more extended, and the overall sound has a bit more body, weight and warmth. Images are a bit more holographic, though they are not outlined and stark. Choral music and some of those operatic tracks are more convincing, as are the string ensembles.

Finally, toward the end of the visit, I was sitting in the side chair and listening to Vlad say his goodbyes. I closed my eyes and did indeed notice a bunch of sibilance and an image much more diffuse than I see with eyes wide open. This confirmed for me some of my thinking about the way voices sound live in terms of tone, size, and image. Same thing at the Ayer Mansion in Boston or solo cello in Vienna.

I had a tendency to refer back to my own system when hearing systems at Goodwin’s, or at other people’s houses. I think this is a natural reference for all of us, as well as live, acoustic music. However, I wonder if it does us a disservice. It can tell us that we hear certain detail from the same recordings in our own systems and not in a friend’s, or visa versa, and that has value. But, for me, it has tended to lead me in a direction at times at odds with the sound of real music. So, this is something I am starting to think about more now.

Tasos is correct that the recording is all we have. We also don’t know what the recording engineer heard or wants us to hear. However, how do we really know that the way something sounds in a system is the way it “should” sound or not? Perhaps this is a fool’s mission. I am thinking that this is a fundamental conflict in the hobby: getting closer and closer to the recording without knowing what it is supposed to sound like. We must also refer to the sound of live music as a guide. Finding the truth somewhere within those parameters is the challenge, and perhaps different for each of us.

Tasos, though I disagreed at the time, I do appreciate your comments which did in fact lead me to further experimentation. The speakers are still straight ahead, but even further from the side walls, more direct to the listening seat, and the overall sound is better. Thank you for those suggestions.

Vlad, I’m glad you made the trip to Marblehead to hear a new system. You have keen ears, and I appreciated you comments as well, and the company of both of you.

Ian comes out this evening to listen for the first time in quite a while. I’ll be curious to hear his opinion.

Regards,
Peter

 

[Folsom]

Peter I do wonder a bit...

If you came across a change that made things better but wasn't as "diffuse" would you be able to accept it? There are changes that someone who likes "natural" sound may highly approve of, that may also say make the stereo a little less diffuse (but not etched or anything like that). I wonder because I'm not sure I understand the word 'accuracy' in your context. I'm always seeking better accuracy for timbre, for making something sound as much like the instrument as possible, but not accuracy of soundstage for example.

 

[ddk]

Peter I do wonder a bit...

If you came across a change that made things better but wasn't as "diffuse" would you be able to accept it? There are changes that someone who likes "natural" sound may highly approve of, that may also say make the stereo a little less diffuse (but not etched or anything like that). I wonder because I'm not sure I understand the word 'accuracy' in your context. I'm always seeking better accuracy for timbre, for making something sound as much like the instrument as possible, but not accuracy of soundstage for example.

Diffuse doesn't make it natural or accurate, the first step is to get to "natural" sound then accuracy and resolution are the next steps up the ladder. An accurate natural soundstage is something to strive for, it's totally different from the fake type created by some cables and footers which is really a type of coloration. I'm sure that your steel mat has given you some of these attributes with better overall definition.

david

 

[PeterA]

Peter I do wonder a bit...

If you came across a change that made things better but wasn't as "diffuse" would you be able to accept it? There are changes that someone who likes "natural" sound may highly approve of, that may also say make the stereo a little less diffuse (but not etched or anything like that). I wonder because I'm not sure I understand the word 'accuracy' in your context. I'm always seeking better accuracy for timbre, for making something sound as much like the instrument as possible, but not accuracy of soundstage for example.

Folsom, I just used the word "accuracy" because that is a word Tasos uses frequently. I think he means timbral accuracy as you use it too. That is great. There is the idea of trying to recreate exactly what is on the recording, and this too may be covered with that term. Tasos would be the one to ask. I think that is fine too in that sense if that is the approach. I want a cello to sound like my memory of a live cello, its energy and its place in space. I don't want a cut out photographic image of that cello in my living room. My older sound approached that to a great degree.

I used "diffuse" in relative terms. This was part of my understanding of the term "natural". The sound of Vlad's voice was not "diffuse" per se, it was just not as precisely focused in space as I "imagine" it to be when looking at someone across the table from me. This was a kind of revelation to me. When Vlad was standing there saying his goodbyes, I closed my eyes and listened to the sound in isolation of the sense of sight. This is in the context of Tasos describing my system that afternoon as having lost its image specificity and sense of 3D holographic palpability. Tasos said he missed that about my old sound now that he was not hearing it. He was right to observe it as I was experimenting with how to move away from it.

Perhaps "diffuse" is not the right word. I mean less outlined, less precise, less defined. Vlad's words were looser than that and their sound energy was not confined or contained. It spread out rapidly into the room. That is when I started thinking less about precise images and more about sound energy from the system and image layering and localization. Again, this is more as I hear this stuff sound in live settings, Vlad's voice and the BSO.

 

[bonzo75]

Folsom, I just used the word "accuracy" because that is a word Tasos uses frequently. I think he means timbral accuracy as you use it too. That is great. There is the idea of trying to recreate exactly what is on the recording, and this too may be covered with that term. I think that is fine too in that sense if that is the approach. I want a cello to sound like my memory of a live cello.

On good recordings by good engineers the instruments will sound like the memory of live instruments and the soundstage will be more from a concert venue. Therefore if you let the recording through the stage will change from recording to recording rather than being the same stage for every recording (in which case it is a stage forced by the equipment)

 

[PeterA]

On good recordings by good engineers the instruments will sound like the memory of live instruments and the soundstage will be more from a concert venue. Therefore if you let the recording through the stage will change from recording to recording rather than being the same stage for every recording (in which case it is a stage forced by the equipment)

Yes, indeed. And I am learning that my recording venues sound more and more distinct than they did before. When I had the Transparent cables, and with some power cords and even the pneumatic platforms and room treatments, there was a sameness to the recordings. I think it was because these devices somehow altered or reduced the information from the recordings. The subtle nuances and very low level information was either absorbed in the room or cut from the signal in an attempt to get lower noise and blacker backgrounds. Bass popped forward and became tighter. Cymbals were splashy and crisp. Space was black. Hall information was lost somewhere in the process.

I have been criticised for "liking" noise and introducing it back into the system through cheap Chinese power cords. I get that, and I used to think in those terms. I now realize That it is not that simple. If noise is entering the system but subtle recorded information is not being killed off by "noise reduction" technology or signal alterations or too much dampening, I'll take it. I want to hear what is on the recording presented in a convincing manner, and that is not through a sameness of sound stages and black backgrounds.

 

[Folsom]

Diffuse doesn't make it natural or accurate, the first step is to get to "natural" sound then accuracy and resolution are the next steps up the ladder. An accurate natural soundstage is something to strive for, it's totally different from the fake type created by some cables and footers which is really a type of coloration. I'm sure that your steel mat has given you some of these attributes with better overall definition.

david

I'm certainly not saying I don't have a soundstage of any kind. But it's just something that happens, it isn't sought after. The better everything is, it just kind of shows up.

 

[PeterA]

Peter I do wonder a bit...

If you came across a change that made things better but wasn't as "diffuse" would you be able to accept it? There are changes that someone who likes "natural" sound may highly approve of, that may also say make the stereo a little less diffuse (but not etched or anything like that). I wonder because I'm not sure I understand the word 'accuracy' in your context. I'm always seeking better accuracy for timbre, for making something sound as much like the instrument as possible, but not accuracy of soundstage for example.

Yes I would be able to except it. In fact this is happening in my system right now. Diffuse is not the right word. I regret having used it. It does not adequately describe what I mean. I tried to clarify that in the post above.

 

[morricab]

Kedar, that is not for me to say. You should see the ones that touch on politics. Yikes.

Here is the email I wrote and sent to the Boston Group shortly after that visit in January from Tasos and Vlad. It is typical of the considered exchanges we have within the group. I feel I have benefitted from being able to hear live music with audiophile friends while also hearing and comparing our respective systems. It has led to a better understanding of how I want to evolve my system and where I want to go.

Hello Everyone,

I thought it would be easier to just send this to all of you.

I thank Vlad and Tasos for coming to Marblehead and hearing my system last Sunday. It seems Vlad liked it a bit more than Tasos did, but what I really appreciate, as always, is the candor each of us has with each other about this fascinating, and sometimes frustrating hobby. We had some disagreements and spirited discussions about the most recent sound of my system.

Tasos, in particular, did not seem to enjoy the more diffuse sound, lack of image specificity, weak center image, and perhaps subdued higher frequencies. Interestingly, there was some disagreement about the extension of the base and the quality of the highs, depending on the recording. The image specificity, both scale and location was also an area of disagreement.

We switched arm/cartridge combinations, and as I discovered hearing Al’s opinion, our opinions varied between the AirTight Supreme/V-12 to the vdH Master Sig./3012R, depending on the music. On these differences, we tended to agree with each other, though I am still not clear about which combination has deeper bass. I think the quality of the bass differs, but I’m not so sure about extension. I do agree that the latter combination sounded a bit thinner in the midrange, but we tended to agree that the former combination has better articulation and resolution.

Taking all of the comments to heart, I experimented a bit with toe-in and speaker placement. I first toed in the speakers about 5 degrees, then up to about 15 degrees. I did not like this sound. It became slightly more precise, but less distinct, and it sounded more like hifi and less natural to me. This is where I think my tastes are changing and we may disagree. I then toed them back out but moved them towards each other. First 1/2”, then 1”, then 1.5”. Here, for a total of 3” total decrease in width, the sound became more solid, with a more defined center image and better warmth and body.

I think both Tasos and Vlad seemed to prefer the midrange/lower freq of the AirTight with the articulation and highs of the Master Sig. Tasos wants to come back to hear the vdH on the V-12, which he presumes to be a much better arm. Anyway, this now sounds better. The images are still not outlines as with the toe-in, and there is still some reflected room sound, but with the speakers closer together, the listener is a bit more on axis, (similar to a slight toe-in), the center image is more solid and defined, the highs are clearer and more extended, and the overall sound has a bit more body, weight and warmth. Images are a bit more holographic, though they are not outlined and stark. Choral music and some of those operatic tracks are more convincing, as are the string ensembles.

Finally, toward the end of the visit, I was sitting in the side chair and listening to Vlad say his goodbyes. I closed my eyes and did indeed notice a bunch of sibilance and an image much more diffuse than I see with eyes wide open. This confirmed for me some of my thinking about the way voices sound live in terms of tone, size, and image. Same thing at the Ayer Mansion in Boston or solo cello in Vienna.

I had a tendency to refer back to my own system when hearing systems at Goodwin’s, or at other people’s houses. I think this is a natural reference for all of us, as well as live, acoustic music. However, I wonder if it does us a disservice. It can tell us that we hear certain detail from the same recordings in our own systems and not in a friend’s, or visa versa, and that has value. But, for me, it has tended to lead me in a direction at times at odds with the sound of real music. So, this is something I am starting to think about more now.

Tasos is correct that the recording is all we have. We also don’t know what the recording engineer heard or wants us to hear. However, how do we really know that the way something sounds in a system is the way it “should” sound or not? Perhaps this is a fool’s mission. I am thinking that this is a fundamental conflict in the hobby: getting closer and closer to the recording without knowing what it is supposed to sound like. We must also refer to the sound of live music as a guide. Finding the truth somewhere within those parameters is the challenge, and perhaps different for each of us.

Tasos, though I disagreed at the time, I do appreciate your comments which did in fact lead me to further experimentation. The speakers are still straight ahead, but even further from the side walls, more direct to the listening seat, and the overall sound is better. Thank you for those suggestions.

Vlad, I’m glad you made the trip to Marblehead to hear a new system. You have keen ears, and I appreciated you comments as well, and the company of both of you.

Ian comes out this evening to listen for the first time in quite a while. I’ll be curious to hear his opinion.

Regards,
Peter

As I have said many times; live, unamplified music is the only real reference to calibrate your ears to. Everything else is filtered or altered. It is not easy to use this for comparison purposes though as auditory memory for most people is poor. A reasonable alternative is good live recordings of acoustic music as these are often less processed than even standard classical and jazz recordings. Most commercial recordings SHOULD NOT sound real...they are manufactured product to give a particular result but won't really duplicate what you hear live...this further complicates the assessment.

Realistic tone coupled with good low level resolution and low (audible) distortion will naturally create a good sense of space and 3d imaging. I have had speakers that sounded more correct straight ahead and ones that sounded more right toed-in...judging that "rightness" is an important skill.

Keep in mind that most commercial recordings should have good imaging as engineers cook that into the process of stereo. If your imaging is fuzzy or indistinct because you have the speakers straight ahead this is probably not correct based on what is on the recordings. In this sense Tasos is probably right. If toe-in makes it sound less realistic to you that still might not make it wrong but it could indicate that there are issues with your system related to realism that are not related to speaker positioning (i.e. speakers, amps cables etc. etc.). What about it sounds less realistic to you? The tone? The localization is "too" precise compared to sitting mid-hall in a concert? Again, realize with most recordings (also classical) it should sound more precise. They put the microphones right by or over the sections and mix it.

I have one recording of Prokovfiev Romeo and Juliet that uses a single, stereo, ribbon microphone and it sounds very different from 99% of the commercial releases of this piece. It also sounds the most like what I remembered from hearing this wonderful piece of music live (I was even fortunate enough to sit about the same distance from the stage as where the microphone was set in making the recording). It is not a razor sharp sound...live or on the recording. But I was sitting in the front row of Evegeniy Kissin playing Beethoven piano conerto and that did have the presence of a lot of recordings I have heard...including lots of micro detail on the piano function itself and clear localization on from where in the piano (it was huge concert grand Steinway) the sound was emanating. Likewise, I have been in home concerts and made home recoridngs that have stunning presence and if one's system sounds diffuse with these it is doing something really wrong.