Sublime Sound

[tima]

I actually found it pretty difficult to describe in my post above the new sound in my room. Finding the words to describe what I now hear is challenging because the old audiophile attributes I see floating around, and which I used to use freely myself, simply don't come to mind so easily right now. The experience of listening now is much more organic and simple. Individual attributes don't apply. The only real description that comes to mind is "room filling energy". I don't really think of the sound as such now, it is more about the music, the composition, and the joy of expression captured in these recordings.

Interesting comment Peter. As you're sorting out what you hear I"m thinking you're sorting out how to describe what you hear. They're kinda the same thing. While what you're hearing now changed from your earlier setup, I'm also thinking that the attributes we've always used to describe sound still have value.

Consider it this way: the words, characteristics and attributes you use to describe what you hear in the concert hall haven't changed have they? Sidenote: another value of having live acoustic music as a reference is having the language of live acoustic music description at hand.

Btw the pinpoint imaging you mentioned is not what you hear when you visit the orchestra, but it is the sonic memory of your own set up that you hear day in and out that is much more powerful than a visit once a quarter to the orchestra.

Agreed about pinpoint imaging in the hall. I'm more inclined to think of this as performer dimensionality which is a bit more descriptive of audiophile systems than being able to tell that the timpani are stage left of the basses or the clarinets are behind the oboes. You should be able to tell the latter in the hall with your eyes open or shut. But I don't experience any sense of performer outline or dimension in the concert hall whereas some gear is adept at yielding that psycho acoustic experience - and many audiophiles seem to get off on it. I recall listening to one of the better ARC amplifiers and thinking I could 'see' the dimensional rows of string players laid out before me - ime, that's not a concert hall experience. Still the idea that sound from a stereo can cause dimensional images in the listening room is a compelling experience for some but is it "natural"? I don't think so. Height is another characteristic we don't experience much in the concert hall.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, we have seen no pictures of micro's system, nor has anyone ever heard and commented on it. Really curious myself... sounds too much theory and not enough practice

Well, I have posted pictures of it several times, but just when needed to illustrate specif aspects in appropriate threads. Anyway my thought is that most times proper identification of the relevant details in the scene or even a measurement is much more interesting for the discussion than gear exhibition. Just MHO, YMMV.

Apologies for not being able to appease your curiosity - but I suppose that proper use of google image inside the WBF site can help you. Concerning the not enough practice, you are right, I am not a retired person and besides spend more time listening to music than fiddling. And yes, I am a "slow listener", I need some time before being able to post an opinion.

 

[VLS]

But I don't experience any sense of performer outline or dimension in the concert hall whereas some gear is adept at yielding that psycho acoustic experience - and many audiophiles seem to get off on it. I recall listening to one of the better ARC amplifiers and thinking I could 'see' the dimensional rows of string players laid out before me - ime, that's not a concert hall experience. Still the idea that sound from a stereo can cause dimensional images in the listening room is a compelling experience for some but is it "natural"? I don't think so. Height is another characteristic we don't experience much in the concert hall.

An interesting conundrum.

The information about the layering of the string players must be present in the recording for the amp to reproduce it, since it seems unlikely that an amp would be capable of "manufacturing" a sense of space that was this precise (as opposed to some less-specific sense of bloom, or a more generic dimensionality).

If this is so, one might argue that it’s in fact imperative for a competent amp is to reproduce such artificiality, provided that doesn't come at the cost of doing other things well. If it doesn’t, and achieves a better rendition of a concert hall by attenuating information, it will very likely obscure important – and realistic – cues in better, more natural recordings.

Vlad

 

[tima]

An interesting conundrum.

The information about the layering of the string players must be present in the recording for the amp to reproduce it, since it seems unlikely that an amp would be capable of "manufacturing" a sense of space that was this precise (as opposed to some less-specific sense of bloom, or a more generic dimensionality).

If this is so, one might argue that it’s in fact imperative for a competent amp is to reproduce such artificiality, provided that doesn't come at the cost of doing other things well. If it doesn’t, and achieves a better rendition of a concert hall by attenuating information, it will very likely obscure important – and realistic – cues in better, more natural recordings.

Vlad

Thanks for your interesting post.

I'm mixed on this. Different gear should sound different from one another. I know that certain products yield a greater sense of 'air' or spaciousness and one manufacturer that is known for this, at least in their top tier models, is Audio Research. Gear from other manufacturers may yield something similar, but different - if that makes any sense. I don't want to say ARC manufactures a sense of space but those characteristics are fairly consistent across records to one degree or another. Is it in that equipment to extract or pull-out such information or is it a homogenizing effect of their design? Or both? I don't know. I do know their top models (line, phono, amps) are quite successful and users find that sense of air and space appealing.

 

[PeterA]

I would like to share some general thoughts about my experience with three specific groups of audio items. These impressions were primarily formed by listening to these products in my own system, but I have heard similar effects with some of them in other familiar systems. I do not want to proclaim a value or imply that I think something is good or bad. I simply want to describe what I hear in my system, how the sound changes to my ears, with these specific products. What I find interesting is that their sonic effect is surprisingly similar to my ears.

1. Room Treatments: ASC Tube Traps, Acoustic Revive RWL-3 Acoustic Conditioner (https://www.highfidelityreview.com/acoustic-revive-rwl-3.html)

For years I have been listening to my system with an assortment of acoustic room treatments. My listening room has a fireplace which protrudes out into the room by about five feet. This creates a chamber behind each speaker at the front of the room which I had found problematic acoustically. At the time, I owned Eggleston Rosa speakers. They had two 6” woofer and two 6” mid range drivers. The extension was specified as 30 Hz or so. In my room, there was a lot of bass energy. The bass was uneven and boomy. A friend suggested I try some Tube Traps. I bought four units and installed one in each front corner of the room. The bass was instantly smoother, everything sounded clearer, and I thought I heard greater resolution. This was a success.

A while later a friend ordered some Acoustic Revive diffusion panels and as he was on vacation, they arrived at my house. I tried them in my system on the front wall between the Tube Traps. I was surprised and impressed how the sound became more lively and the room more energized. The soundstage seemed to expand in depth and width. I ordered two panels for myself and reluctantly gave my friend his two samples.

The resulting sound was clearer, more contrasty, higher resolution with more detail. The only downside I noticed with all of these items is that they made my listing room look like an audio store.

2. Pneumatic isolation platforms: Townshend Seismic Sink, Vibraplane

Perhaps it was a review I read somewhere or something I picked up from a friend, but I was able to audition a small Townshend Seismic Sink in my system under my one box preamp. Backgrounds became blacker, bass tightened up, resolution increased. “Wow”, I remember thinking. This really made a difference, so I tried it under my CD player. Same effect. I eventually ordered five units, two for my two- box preamp, two for my two-box phono stage, and one for my power distribution box.

Given their effect in my system, I started researching Vibraplane platforms and started talking to a guy on Audiogon about how he had one under his fancy Micro Seiki turntable and another two under his heavy Lamm mono block tube amps. I found one used on Audiogon, and bought two new ones from the distributor who was local. Just as with the Townshend Sinks, the effect was obvious, immediate, and consistent. Blacker backgrounds, more articulate and extended bass, cleaner sound, more resolution.

3. Power cords: 4 audiophile brands, Ching Cheng, manufacturer stock

This category is interesting. I started out with stock power cords years ago until I could afford some audiophile cables and matching power cords. My first brand was Harmonic Technology. They seemed to offer good value for the money. I later upgraded to a full suite of Transparent Audio cables and cords.

I lived with the Transparent products for years, through component upgrades and generally improving sound. Then someone suggested trying stock power cords. I pulled out my SME and Pass Labs power cords and tried them all at once. The sound became less vivid, a bit less focused. I thought I heard more noise in the system obscuring details. I reinserted my Transparent power cords. Blacker backgrounds, more defined images, more focus, more resolution, and perhaps better dynamics.

I then went to visit a good audiophile friend who has a system with which I am very familiar. He swore by his stock cords for $6 each or something. His system sounded excellent, and he encouraged my to try my stock cords again. About this time, I also started reading comments on WBF about stock cords, so I gave them another try in my own system.

The sound became a bit less focused, but it also sounded more alive, more involving. It lost the black background and focused images and “detail”, but it actually sounded a bit more natural. What was going on here? I went back and forth in a somewhat casual way for months, always preferring the sound of the cords in the system. I was conflicted, because the Transparent cords did some things better, while the stock cords did other things better.

Then about a year ago, one manufacturer who was also a member of WBF contacted me and asked if I would be willing to try his power cord in my system. It was under development and I think he was genuinely interested in my listening impressions and those of others in the field, so to speak. I tried the cord in the system. Sure enough, it did some things really well, and reminded me of the sound of the Transparent cord. The resolution might have actually been even better than the audiophile cord I owned, but I did not quite feel as though I could justify spending money on this when it was so similar to what I already had, and I would need three of them. I shared some feedback off line, and the designer appreciated my input.

Then another audiophile cord found its way into my system. This was going around my friends’ systems, so I thought I would give it a try too. Wow, it was really well made, super expensive connectors, etc. etc. I inserted it in my system and it sounded similar to the other two fancy cords. I contacted the designer and shared some feedback but was told the cable was extremely sensitive to being moved around and needed to settle more in my system to sound its best. I had already given it to a friend, so I auditioned the same cord again in his system where it had remained for over a week. I heard the same basic sonic attributes in my friend’s system as I heard in mine, despite the longer break-in or settling time. We then switched back to his stock cords, and we both clearly heard the differences, and they were quite similar to what we had both heard in my system.

What the audiophile cords seem to do in my system, and in my friend’s system, is add a sense of clarity, blacker background, lower noise, and improved resolution. However, they also sounded a bit less lively and less natural. I have since replaced my stock power cords with three Ching Cheng cords which really seem to add nothing to the sound.

In the past few weeks, after fine-tuning my new tonearm and repositioning my speakers to face straight ahead, I have reinstalled all three of these products categories in my system to see if my impresses held. Sure enough, the sonic effects or attributes remain consistent and are repeatable.

These three products all move the sound of my system, individually, and cumulatively, in the same direction: They create a bolder, more defined sound with decreasing noise and blacker backgrounds. The result is the perception of more resolution and detail. Starker, more outlined images in a more defined soundstage. This is the sound I had been chasing for years. I loved the holographic, palpable image of Johnny Hartman singing in my living room or hearing all the detail from a large jazz ensemble. I liked “seeing” the four instruments in a string quartet or picking out specific instruments in larger orchestras. I really dug the defined, articulate bass, emphasized on stage with a spotlight.

However, my tastes are now changing. The more live music I hear, the more I slowly realize that these attributes which sound so impressive and used to confirm for me that I was on the right upgrade path, no longer sound natural to me. They sound like the super expensive systems I heard at dealerships or some shows. It was a hifi sound, so well described in magazine reviews. My friend wrote me that you can not break up music into bits and pieces. The real thing is a more holistic experience. It is experienced as a whole, not as individual elements of sounds. I now understand what he means.

Removing these acoustic treatments, air isolation platforms, and fancy power cords from my system has increased the sense of liveliness and engagement I experience when listening to my records. The sound is less hyper-focused and hifi sounding. Flow, rhythm, life, color, hall acoustics; they all work together now to form a more realistic impression of the actual sound of music. The sound is more open, the room is more energized, and the experience is more enveloping.

For me, in this system, at this time, these changes sound more convincing or believable and more natural. And the system is now simpler. Others may well prefer the more detailed, more defined, and more "high-end sound" I had before. I look forward to hearing what visitors will think.

 

[Lagonda]

Bravo Peter ! Nice write up !

 

[VLS]

Indeed, very interesting and well written Peter. I can imagine a couple (at least!) of underlying hypotheses explaining what is happening:

1) The close-miking of most recordings captures “too much” detail, and reproducing the same creates an unnatural, albeit not displeasing, experience. After all, our hearing of live events is not close-miked. So, a judicious “de-tuning” of the playback chain sheds the artificial detail, and thus better approximates reality. The issue is of course that it’s not clear how to best de-tune a system, and that while doing so might improve unnaturally detailed recordings, it might lose something with better balanced ones.

2) The successful reproduction of detail in many systems comes at a cost. For example, one might imagine an AC conditioner removing deleterious noise, but in doing so killing dynamics because it restricts instantaneous current. The implication of this hypothesis is that the quest for just the right type and balance of tweaks might give one the best of all worlds, and that your search should continue.

I’d be interested in your view.

FWIW, and IMHO, I think that there is some existence proof that some systems get close to getting the balance right. I just heard the current setup in Goodwin’s big room (Rockport Lyra, Nagra HD / pre, Vivaldi stack), which creates an uncannily realistic sound on some (but not all, of course) recordings. Detailed but balanced and 'organic', not "hi fi", 3D, with natural tone, and dynamics (macro and micro).

 

[Jim Smith]

I would like to share some general thoughts about my experience with three specific groups of audio items. These impressions were primarily formed by listening to these products in my own system, but I have heard similar effects with some of them in other familiar systems. I do not want to proclaim a value or imply that I think something is good or bad. I simply want to describe what I hear in my system, how the sound changes to my ears, with these specific products. What I find interesting is that their sonic effect is surprisingly similar to my ears.

1. Room Treatments: ASC Tube Traps, Acoustic Revive RWL-3 Acoustic Conditioner (https://www.highfidelityreview.com/acoustic-revive-rwl-3.html)

For years I have been listening to my system with an assortment of acoustic room treatments. My listening room has a fireplace which protrudes out into the room by about five feet. This creates a chamber behind each speaker at the front of the room which I had found problematic acoustically. At the time, I owned Eggleston Rosa speakers. They had two 6” woofer and two 6” mid range drivers. The extension was specified as 30 Hz or so. In my room, there was a lot of bass energy. The bass was uneven and boomy. A friend suggested I try some Tube Traps. I bought four units and installed one in each front corner of the room. The bass was instantly smoother, everything sounded clearer, and I thought I heard greater resolution. This was a success.

A while later a friend ordered some Acoustic Revive diffusion panels and as he was on vacation, they arrived at my house. I tried them in my system on the front wall between the Tube Traps. I was surprised and impressed how the sound became more lively and the room more energized. The soundstage seemed to expand in depth and width. I ordered two panels for myself and reluctantly gave my friend his two samples.

The resulting sound was clearer, more contrasty, higher resolution with more detail. The only downside I noticed with all of these items is that they made my listing room look like an audio store.

2. Pneumatic isolation platforms: Townshend Seismic Sink, Vibraplane

Perhaps it was a review I read somewhere or something I picked up from a friend, but I was able to audition a small Townshend Seismic Sink in my system under my one box preamp. Backgrounds became blacker, bass tightened up, resolution increased. “Wow”, I remember thinking. This really made a difference, so I tried it under my CD player. Same effect. I eventually ordered five units, two for my two- box preamp, two for my two-box phono stage, and one for my power distribution box.

Given their effect in my system, I started researching Vibraplane platforms and started talking to a guy on Audiogon about how he had one under his fancy Micro Seiki turntable and another two under his heavy Lamm mono block tube amps. I found one used on Audiogon, and bought two new ones from the distributor who was local. Just as with the Townshend Sinks, the effect was obvious, immediate, and consistent. Blacker backgrounds, more articulate and extended bass, cleaner sound, more resolution.

3. Power cords: 4 audiophile brands, Ching Cheng, manufacturer stock

This category is interesting. I started out with stock power cords years ago until I could afford some audiophile cables and matching power cords. My first brand was Harmonic Technology. They seemed to offer good value for the money. I later upgraded to a full suite of Transparent Audio cables and cords.

I lived with the Transparent products for years, through component upgrades and generally improving sound. Then someone suggested trying stock power cords. I pulled out my SME and Pass Labs power cords and tried them all at once. The sound became less vivid, a bit less focused. I thought I heard more noise in the system obscuring details. I reinserted my Transparent power cords. Blacker backgrounds, more defined images, more focus, more resolution, and perhaps better dynamics.

I then went to visit a good audiophile friend who has a system with which I am very familiar. He swore by his stock cords for $6 each or something. His system sounded excellent, and he encouraged my to try my stock cords again. About this time, I also started reading comments on WBF about stock cords, so I gave them another try in my own system.

The sound became a bit less focused, but it also sounded more alive, more involving. It lost the black background and focused images and “detail”, but it actually sounded a bit more natural. What was going on here? I went back and forth in a somewhat casual way for months, always preferring the sound of the cords in the system. I was conflicted, because the Transparent cords did some things better, while the stock cords did other things better.

Then about a year ago, one manufacturer who was also a member of WBF contacted me and asked if I would be willing to try his power cord in my system. It was under development and I think he was genuinely interested in my listening impressions and those of others in the field, so to speak. I tried the cord in the system. Sure enough, it did some things really well, and reminded me of the sound of the Transparent cord. The resolution might have actually been even better than the audiophile cord I owned, but I did not quite feel as though I could justify spending money on this when it was so similar to what I already had, and I would need three of them. I shared some feedback off line, and the designer appreciated my input.

Then another audiophile cord found its way into my system. This was going around my friends’ systems, so I thought I would give it a try too. Wow, it was really well made, super expensive connectors, etc. etc. I inserted it in my system and it sounded similar to the other two fancy cords. I contacted the designer and shared some feedback but was told the cable was extremely sensitive to being moved around and needed to settle more in my system to sound its best. I had already given it to a friend, so I auditioned the same cord again in his system where it had remained for over a week. I heard the same basic sonic attributes in my friend’s system as I heard in mine, despite the longer break-in or settling time. We then switched back to his stock cords, and we both clearly heard the differences, and they were quite similar to what we had both heard in my system.

What the audiophile cords seem to do in my system, and in my friend’s system, is add a sense of clarity, blacker background, lower noise, and improved resolution. However, they also sounded a bit less lively and less natural. I have since replaced my stock power cords with three Ching Cheng cords which really seem to add nothing to the sound.

In the past few weeks, after fine-tuning my new tonearm and repositioning my speakers to face straight ahead, I have reinstalled all three of these products categories in my system to see if my impresses held. Sure enough, the sonic effects or attributes remain consistent and are repeatable.

These three products all move the sound of my system, individually, and cumulatively, in the same direction: They create a bolder, more defined sound with decreasing noise and blacker backgrounds. The result is the perception of more resolution and detail. Starker, more outlined images in a more defined soundstage. This is the sound I had been chasing for years. I loved the holographic, palpable image of Johnny Hartman singing in my living room or hearing all the detail from a large jazz ensemble. I liked “seeing” the four instruments in a string quartet or picking out specific instruments in larger orchestras. I really dug the defined, articulate bass, emphasized on stage with a spotlight.

However, my tastes are now changing. The more live music I hear, the more I slowly realize that these attributes which sound so impressive and used to confirm for me that I was on the right upgrade path, no longer sound natural to me. They sound like the super expensive systems I heard at dealerships or some shows. It was a hifi sound, so well described in magazine reviews. My friend wrote me that you can not break up music into bits and pieces. The real thing is a more holistic experience. It is experienced as a whole, not as individual elements of sounds. I now understand what he means.

Removing these acoustic treatments, air isolation platforms, and fancy power cords from my system has increased the sense of liveliness and engagement I experience when listening to my records. The sound is less hyper-focused and hifi sounding. Flow, rhythm, life, color, hall acoustics; they all work together now to form a more realistic impression of the actual sound of music. The sound is more open, the room is more energized, and the experience is more enveloping.

For me, in this system, at this time, these changes sound more convincing or believable and more natural. And the system is now simpler. Others may well prefer the more detailed, more defined, and more "high-end sound" I had before. I look forward to hearing what visitors will think.

Nicely explained, Peter.

Re sheer musical involvement vs. high-end sound effects, agreed 100%.

However, I should emphasize that I am not attempting to degrade - in any way - those that follow that path vs. the musical involvement as mentioned above. We all have different choices, and I have worked with clients from both classes. When possible, it is nice to be able to offer some other viewpoints, though.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks Lagonda and VLS.

I really don't know what is happening here. Perhaps there is some "de-tuning" going on with close-mic'd recordings, but that does not really fit with what I am hearing in my system. A few days ago I reinserted the TubeTraps and AR panels. The effect was an immediate silence and stark contrast of the musicians in a black space. Super defined in high contrast, sort of like a beautiful black and white Ansel Adams photo. Vivid contrast and detail and impressive sound.

I removed all of the treatments, put them in my truck and into storage until I can sell them. What I heard upon returning was a more alive sound with recording ambiance, much more open, more nuanced, more atmospheric. Like oxygen re-entered the room. There was the breath of life in the sound. I head to turn down the volume for the same perceived loudness because the room was more energized. But, the relaxed, natural sound now begs to be turned up because there are fewer artifacts.

The reduction of these artifacts also seems to produce a more accurate timbre. Brass and strings never sounded so distinct and colorful. There seems to be more information or musical content. It is a richer, less bare or exposed sound. It is actually more complex with more beauty, even if there is slightly more noise. The sound seems less "enhanced." I don't really know how else to describe it.

I can not explain how the room treatment, the power cords, or the isolation products actually achieve this effect, but I think it has to do with finer information and how it completes the sonic picture. A friend suggested that these types of products either dampen, absorb, or otherwise obscure the harmonics. What I hear is what is left behind: a stronger, bolder sound, stripped of the subtle information that makes music sound complete and natural.

I used to wax poetically to my audio buddies about the "complete note". I used this concept to explain what I heard when I adjusted VTA or tried to compare the Pass Labs .5 to .8 amplifiers. The fundamental of the note and their audible relationship to their harmonics. One needs both for the note, the music, the experience to sound complete, and thus natural.

With the room treatments removed, (and power cords and air isolation) the sound opens, fills the room more, is less about my room, and more about the recording venue. Space expands, notes expand and hang in the air, the sheer energy of the bow against the string, and the resonating, hollow sound of the wooden body leave the system and fill the room. The speakers and system disappear.

I hear this across musical genres, live and studio recordings. These products suck out some of the life of the music. ddk wrote something about how certain products "kill the sound." I now hear this and can relate to what he describes. I don't know the reasons, and until I recognized it myself for what it is, I was enamored of the hifi sound, that detailed, contrasty, vivid sound with outlined images, all neat and organized. Real music is not like that. It breaths and is organic. It flows and is full of energy. Great recordings are sublime, but ordinary recordings still show these attributes.

 

[PeterA]

Nicely explained, Peter.

Re sheer musical involvement vs. high-end sound effects, agreed 100%.

However, I should emphasize that I am not attempting to degrade - in any way - those that follow that path vs. the musical involvement as mentioned above. We all have different choices, and I have worked with clients from both classes. When possible, it is nice to be able to offer some other viewpoints, though.

Thank you Jim. I am reminded how when you visited me and worked on my sound, you made it clear that you were not advocating one approach over another. You worked diligently to optimize my sound based on the gear, stuff, and room that I already had. You did not try to persuade me to get rid of anything or sell me anything new. I really appreciated that attitude. I lived with that Mini II based system for a long time and really enjoyed it. I did not realize at the time that I was only starting my audio walk.

 

[microstrip]

(...) For me, in this system, at this time, these changes sound more convincing or believable and more natural. And the system is now simpler. Others may well prefer the more detailed, more defined, and more "high-end sound" I had before. I look forward to hearing what visitors will think.

You prefer this type of sound, IMHO this is what matters most. As I have also owned the Magico Mini mkII for a long time, I feel tempted you are in part returning to the type of sound you had with them - a big sound coming from small speakers that filled the whole room in a more ethereal way. The Mini's were not a typical mini monitor!

Curiously my experience with Transparent Audio cables is almost the opposite you refer - but I used them mainly with tubes. Apparently these network cables decrease detail and resolution, compensating it by a sense of realism and being there due to a different way of handling micro-dynamics and bass slam. This becomes very noticeable when we compare, for example TA Opus MM2 with Vallhalla 2 . When coming back to TA we find that details seem to be re missing - but listening once more they are still there. I would say TA has more energy but is more diffuse, there is less leasing edge.

 

[PeterA]

You prefer this type of sound, IMHO this is what matters most. As I have also owned the Magico Mini mkII for a long time, I feel tempted you are in part returning to the type of sound you had with them - a big sound coming from small speakers that filled the whole room in a more ethereal way. The Mini's were not a typical mini monitor!

Curiously my experience with Transparent Audio cables is almost the opposite you refer - but I used them mainly with tubes. Apparently these network cables decrease detail and resolution, compensating it by a sense of realism and being there due to a different way of handling micro-dynamics and bass slam. This becomes very noticeable when we compare, for example TA Opus MM2 with Vallhalla 2 . When coming back to TA we find that details seem to be re missing - but listening once more they are still there. I would say TA has more energy but is more diffuse, there is less leasing edge.

Yes, those Mini IIs were not typical mini monitors. They were great speakers, however, they could not play the large scale more complex music I now also enjoy. They did not have the extension and that one mid/woofer driver could not do what my dedicated midrange and three woofers now do.

Interesting comments about the Transparent cables. I still have my Ref XL signal cables and may reinsert those at some point and compare them with my Burley wires and stock SME phono cable. In the future.

I now think more about detail which is spotlit versus detail which is inherent to the instruments, apparent in good recordings and presented in a natural way. Heightened or enhanced detail is no longer appealing to me.

 

[KeithR]

Great write up, Peter. Sound like “Hi-Fi fireworks” aren’t for you.

On the acoustic treatment stuff, maybe you had an overdamped room before. With ported Egglestons being a much different animal than the somewhat lean in the bass, sealed Magicos.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Interesting comments about the Transparent cables. I still have my Ref XL signal cables and may reinsert those at some point and compare them with my Burley wires and stock SME phono cable. In the future. (...)

Just one detail about the Transparent cables - using just the signal cables without the speaker cables will really enhance detail. IMHO we must always have at less the source and the speaker cable pair. Using only the speaker cable also affects balance.

 

[PeterA]

Great write up, Peter. Sound like “Hi-Fi fireworks” aren’t for you.

On the acoustic treatment stuff, maybe you had an overdamped room before. With ported Egglestons being a much different animal than the somewhat lean in the bass, sealed Magicos.

Thanks Keith. The Egglestons had a more prominent but less refined bass than the Magicos. The MInis had less bass, but very well integrated and natural sounding. The Q3s have more extension, more refinement, more impact, but less slam than the Eggys. The Rosas were more like some well behaved smaller Wilsons I've heard.

 

[PeterA]

Just one detail about the Transparent cables - using just the signal cables without the speaker cables will really enhance detail. IMHO we must always have at less the source and the speaker cable pair. Using only the speaker cable also affects balance.

Thanks, I have been using the Transparents as IC plus speaker cables with and without the power cords. I refer to ICs and speaker cables as signal cables. Is that not the convention?

 

[adyc]

You prefer this type of sound, IMHO this is what matters most. As I have also owned the Magico Mini mkII for a long time, I feel tempted you are in part returning to the type of sound you had with them - a big sound coming from small speakers that filled the whole room in a more ethereal way. The Mini's were not a typical mini monitor!

Curiously my experience with Transparent Audio cables is almost the opposite you refer - but I used them mainly with tubes. Apparently these network cables decrease detail and resolution, compensating it by a sense of realism and being there due to a different way of handling micro-dynamics and bass slam. This becomes very noticeable when we compare, for example TA Opus MM2 with Vallhalla 2 . When coming back to TA we find that details seem to be re missing - but listening once more they are still there. I would say TA has more energy but is more diffuse, there is less leasing edge.

Maybe it is not the fault of Transparent. I heard many Nordost cables users describe Nordost as hyper details. it seems that Nordost may emphasis high and gives the impressions more details.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I would like to share some general thoughts about my experience with three specific groups of audio items. These impressions were primarily formed by listening to these products in my own system, but I have heard similar effects with some of them in other familiar systems. I do not want to proclaim a value or imply that I think something is good or bad. I simply want to describe what I hear in my system, how the sound changes to my ears, with these specific products. What I find interesting is that their sonic effect is surprisingly similar to my ears.

1. Room Treatments: ASC Tube Traps, Acoustic Revive RWL-3 Acoustic Conditioner (https://www.highfidelityreview.com/acoustic-revive-rwl-3.html)

For years I have been listening to my system with an assortment of acoustic room treatments. My listening room has a fireplace which protrudes out into the room by about five feet. This creates a chamber behind each speaker at the front of the room which I had found problematic acoustically. At the time, I owned Eggleston Rosa speakers. They had two 6” woofer and two 6” mid range drivers. The extension was specified as 30 Hz or so. In my room, there was a lot of bass energy. The bass was uneven and boomy. A friend suggested I try some Tube Traps. I bought four units and installed one in each front corner of the room. The bass was instantly smoother, everything sounded clearer, and I thought I heard greater resolution. This was a success.

A while later a friend ordered some Acoustic Revive diffusion panels and as he was on vacation, they arrived at my house. I tried them in my system on the front wall between the Tube Traps. I was surprised and impressed how the sound became more lively and the room more energized. The soundstage seemed to expand in depth and width. I ordered two panels for myself and reluctantly gave my friend his two samples.

The resulting sound was clearer, more contrasty, higher resolution with more detail. The only downside I noticed with all of these items is that they made my listing room look like an audio store.

2. Pneumatic isolation platforms: Townshend Seismic Sink, Vibraplane

Perhaps it was a review I read somewhere or something I picked up from a friend, but I was able to audition a small Townshend Seismic Sink in my system under my one box preamp. Backgrounds became blacker, bass tightened up, resolution increased. “Wow”, I remember thinking. This really made a difference, so I tried it under my CD player. Same effect. I eventually ordered five units, two for my two- box preamp, two for my two-box phono stage, and one for my power distribution box.

Given their effect in my system, I started researching Vibraplane platforms and started talking to a guy on Audiogon about how he had one under his fancy Micro Seiki turntable and another two under his heavy Lamm mono block tube amps. I found one used on Audiogon, and bought two new ones from the distributor who was local. Just as with the Townshend Sinks, the effect was obvious, immediate, and consistent. Blacker backgrounds, more articulate and extended bass, cleaner sound, more resolution.

3. Power cords: 4 audiophile brands, Ching Cheng, manufacturer stock

This category is interesting. I started out with stock power cords years ago until I could afford some audiophile cables and matching power cords. My first brand was Harmonic Technology. They seemed to offer good value for the money. I later upgraded to a full suite of Transparent Audio cables and cords.

I lived with the Transparent products for years, through component upgrades and generally improving sound. Then someone suggested trying stock power cords. I pulled out my SME and Pass Labs power cords and tried them all at once. The sound became less vivid, a bit less focused. I thought I heard more noise in the system obscuring details. I reinserted my Transparent power cords. Blacker backgrounds, more defined images, more focus, more resolution, and perhaps better dynamics.

I then went to visit a good audiophile friend who has a system with which I am very familiar. He swore by his stock cords for $6 each or something. His system sounded excellent, and he encouraged my to try my stock cords again. About this time, I also started reading comments on WBF about stock cords, so I gave them another try in my own system.

The sound became a bit less focused, but it also sounded more alive, more involving. It lost the black background and focused images and “detail”, but it actually sounded a bit more natural. What was going on here? I went back and forth in a somewhat casual way for months, always preferring the sound of the cords in the system. I was conflicted, because the Transparent cords did some things better, while the stock cords did other things better.

Then about a year ago, one manufacturer who was also a member of WBF contacted me and asked if I would be willing to try his power cord in my system. It was under development and I think he was genuinely interested in my listening impressions and those of others in the field, so to speak. I tried the cord in the system. Sure enough, it did some things really well, and reminded me of the sound of the Transparent cord. The resolution might have actually been even better than the audiophile cord I owned, but I did not quite feel as though I could justify spending money on this when it was so similar to what I already had, and I would need three of them. I shared some feedback off line, and the designer appreciated my input.

Then another audiophile cord found its way into my system. This was going around my friends’ systems, so I thought I would give it a try too. Wow, it was really well made, super expensive connectors, etc. etc. I inserted it in my system and it sounded similar to the other two fancy cords. I contacted the designer and shared some feedback but was told the cable was extremely sensitive to being moved around and needed to settle more in my system to sound its best. I had already given it to a friend, so I auditioned the same cord again in his system where it had remained for over a week. I heard the same basic sonic attributes in my friend’s system as I heard in mine, despite the longer break-in or settling time. We then switched back to his stock cords, and we both clearly heard the differences, and they were quite similar to what we had both heard in my system.

What the audiophile cords seem to do in my system, and in my friend’s system, is add a sense of clarity, blacker background, lower noise, and improved resolution. However, they also sounded a bit less lively and less natural. I have since replaced my stock power cords with three Ching Cheng cords which really seem to add nothing to the sound.

In the past few weeks, after fine-tuning my new tonearm and repositioning my speakers to face straight ahead, I have reinstalled all three of these products categories in my system to see if my impresses held. Sure enough, the sonic effects or attributes remain consistent and are repeatable.

These three products all move the sound of my system, individually, and cumulatively, in the same direction: They create a bolder, more defined sound with decreasing noise and blacker backgrounds. The result is the perception of more resolution and detail. Starker, more outlined images in a more defined soundstage. This is the sound I had been chasing for years. I loved the holographic, palpable image of Johnny Hartman singing in my living room or hearing all the detail from a large jazz ensemble. I liked “seeing” the four instruments in a string quartet or picking out specific instruments in larger orchestras. I really dug the defined, articulate bass, emphasized on stage with a spotlight.

However, my tastes are now changing. The more live music I hear, the more I slowly realize that these attributes which sound so impressive and used to confirm for me that I was on the right upgrade path, no longer sound natural to me. They sound like the super expensive systems I heard at dealerships or some shows. It was a hifi sound, so well described in magazine reviews. My friend wrote me that you can not break up music into bits and pieces. The real thing is a more holistic experience. It is experienced as a whole, not as individual elements of sounds. I now understand what he means.

Removing these acoustic treatments, air isolation platforms, and fancy power cords from my system has increased the sense of liveliness and engagement I experience when listening to my records. The sound is less hyper-focused and hifi sounding. Flow, rhythm, life, color, hall acoustics; they all work together now to form a more realistic impression of the actual sound of music. The sound is more open, the room is more energized, and the experience is more enveloping.

For me, in this system, at this time, these changes sound more convincing or believable and more natural. And the system is now simpler. Others may well prefer the more detailed, more defined, and more "high-end sound" I had before. I look forward to hearing what visitors will think.

Very, very, very interesting Peter. Thank you for walking us through the evolution of your thinking and experience on these topics. You may be saving a lot of us a lot of money!

 

[PeterA]

Very, very, very interesting Peter. Thank you for walking us through the evolution of your thinking and experience on these topics. You may be saving a lot of us a lot of money!

Well Ron, you may have to listen for yourself and make up your own mind. Visit any time.

 

[tima]

I now think more about detail which is spotlit versus detail which is inherent to the instruments, apparent in good recordings and presented in a natural way. Heightened or enhanced detail is no longer appealing to me.

This is what I thought VLS was talking about in his point #1, above.