Sublime Sound

[tima]

Peter - Do you consider live acoustic music your reference? If so, is what you describe post-tweak closer to what you experience in the concert hall or other live event?

Or, is your post-tweak sound a new preference in the same manner as your tweaked sound was a preference you enjoyed at one time?

 

[BlueFox]

Personally, I prefer listening to music as close as possible to the way it was played. Not the way it sounds with a dirty power stereo. To each their own.

 

[Folsom]

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.

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.

Peter it's nice to read a journey. But I would say this is the beginning.

I suggest a slightly different way of thinking about part of the path. Don't think that other people with "natural" sounding systems have sacrificed resolution - the opposite really. Detail on the other hand is rather a heightened sense of something that really shouldn't stand out. Here's how I categorize it, are you listening to the stereo or the music? When you're listening to the music you just hear everything, you don't have to think about it. It isn't hifi at all, you don't think about judging the bass. You can evaluate the qualities in it, but you firstly think about the music and not the stereo. You aren't distracted by the qualities of the stereo. And this isn't achieved just by making sound loud and filling. Resolutions comes no matter the size of the room, the amount of treatment, or whether you're in the room or not - it's just part of hearing the music and not the stereo.

The way forward is gaining, not losing. You're using a lot of adjectives but I know there's a lot more for you to gain. There's a lot to look forward to!

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.

1. Partly. Microphones do capture a lot. But the real issue is when a stereo presents small things too largely. Well that depends, a lot of people love it. But when you hear real music, well, details are quiet and not noticed really because you're going to hear the sheer loudness of other things over it - but that loudness can have immense nuance in it. Like I posted above, it's not about removing information, it is about not being distracted by it, turning it into the significance it has in an actual live experience. I'll go as far as saying "de-tuning" is a ridiculous way to describe the approach to natural sound. You're removing tweaks, sure, but it's foolish to assume the only way you can gain is through a loss of objectively qualified things. The reality is that a lot of objectively thought to be "correct" things are actually not correct. There's mountains of misunderstandings, and our first and early thoughts usually interfere with the realizations.

2. No. That's nonsense, utter nonsense. Firstly there has never been a conditioner that restricts current. Current restriction to actually happen requires wires that are human hair size or smaller to cause a tunneling effects. This is all basic physics, there is no contention there. What really happens is when a device is rated/designed poorly the voltage begins to sag during saturation that is caused by the amount of current passing. That current can increase heat and therefor resistance. Resistance lowers potential (voltage) but it doesn't and cannot block current. These problems all come from misunderstandings in the AC eco-system. There's almost no products out there that are worth mentioning that can actually avoid these problems. The majority of them that think they do, are actually subject to constant small saturations. It's easy to hear. The other part of the equation is that if you use something you have to accept some changes in music - something what you thought was dynamic may be a bit less, and something that was less is more. But to further complicate the issue there's a lot of incompatibility with mixing AC filtration. Lamm uses AC filtration at their inputs. The topology is very nearly the same as products you're poo'pooing here, but Lamm chose to use mil-spec versions that are ostensibly more robust and don't fall too easily to the aforementioned issues. In many ways I suspect while imperfect, and not so usable most AC products can be, they may also highlight a lot of problems in a good amount of existing gear. Maybe it's an age & ear thing, but the fatigue level on equipment that has no AC filtration at all is usually brutal to me - maybe it's dynamic to some.

 

[tima]

But the real issue is when a stereo presents small things too largely.

Stereos play what's on the source, the stereo does not choose what to amplify except when it filters out information. For example the so-called 'blacker background' is the a absence of certain harmonic frequencies filtered out as noise.

Wrt your views that no conditioner restricts current I'd love to hear you discuss that with Caelin Gabriel along with discussing his models for measuring impedance differentials in conducting materials.

 

[Folsom]

I’m sorry Tima but it’s more complicated.

I’ll start with; Memory distortion (aka linear distortion) do change volumes of sounds as we perceive them. You see even if the SPL meter shows little difference, the perception of loudness can be incredible because we need to be able to track the changes in volume by hearing them. If we cannot track it, the exposure may need to be lengthy and constant for us to realize just how loud it actually even is! This is a major part of low memory distortion, being able to read tiny shifts so we can understand big ones.

But things dive deeper and deeper. How much compression occurs because of saturating parts? A lot more than you might expect, in a lot more gear than you’d expect. Many tube topologies are somewhat unintentionally immune to saturations and memory distortion, and people swear tube watts are much louder.

Then we have other effects like what grounding boxes do, or parasitics, or inductors & transformers that can elongate voltages. They can bring things forward. Note* not all inductors and transformer use incurs this, but it does happen.

How about the difference in capacitance of cables? High capacitance will squash actual SPL into a narrower window, and you’ll hear more low stuff that should be dominated. This may not leap out as unnatural depending on the rest of the stereo - the difference really being whether you’re still hearing the music or the the stereo.

I cannot and willnot get started on the perception of detail on many other points like speaker cabinet reflections, fuzzy input transistors, ad nauseam 30x. It’s how we hear it, perception, not just SPL.

When it comes to Gabriel his marketing team probably consented very early to using terminology that is common among audiophiles. If he’s taken physics classes, basic electronics classes, he knows exactly how every other non-audiophile company, scientist, teacher, etc on planet earth talks about current. The fact doesn’t change impedance measurements - impedance measures things in ohms, not amperes btw. These are not my views, these are the physics of our existence as we know it.

 

[morricab]

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.

Interesting report, thx Peter. Oddly enough I was a stock power cord guy for a LONG time. I had upgraded thoroughly all my other cables as the “give away” cables sounded clearly inferior. I was hard to move on the power cords though. I did get a power regenerator, which worked as advertised (many do what you were describing with cords but not the one from Monarchy Audio for some reason) and it kind of opened the doors for me to try power cords. In the end I went with NBS Omega Extreme series because I felt they gave the plus without too much “gimmicks”. NBS are the first power cords to give me a wow from something so mundane as a power cord. Another one that does something very interesting is from Boenicke Audio, which is based on the C-Marc tech from LessLoss...Good natural sound preserving dynamics and flow...YMMV

 

[VLS]

Stereos play what's on the source, the stereo does not choose what to amplify except when it filters out information. For example the so-called 'blacker background' is the a absence of certain harmonic frequencies filtered out as noise.

Wrt your views that no conditioner restricts current I'd love to hear you discuss that with Caelin Gabriel along with discussing his models for measuring impedance differentials in conducting materials.

My assumption was indeed that the three distinct treatments that Peter described (and removed) all attempt to eliminate noise: AC line hash, vibration, and room reflections. These all presumably obscure detail in the recording, but the removal of such noise seems unlikely to amplify detail (as opposed to revealing it). Hence the removal of these tweaks ("de-tuning", or more correctly "de-optimizing") likely re-introduces some of the masking.

This is in contrast to tweaks which act as filters on the audio signal, such as non-neutral interconnects which might tilt the spectrum up enhancing detail, or changing speaker toe-in.

But, I admit these are speculations.

Regarding the impact of AC conditioners: Shunyata is indeed a great counterpoint to the assertion that current limitation is not an issue, since one of their foundational goals is to minimize this restriction, which they regard as non-trivial. Even so, in my own experience the Denali helps my source components, but my amp is happiest when plugged directly into a dedicated, high-amp AC line.

 

[PeterA]

Peter - Do you consider live acoustic music your reference? If so, is what you describe post-tweak closer to what you experience in the concert hall or other live event?

Or, is your post-tweak sound a new preference in the same manner as your tweaked sound was a preference you enjoyed at one time?

Hello Tim, I consider live acoustic music to be my reference, and always have. I have written much about this in my posts about live music events that I have attended with my Boston audio WBF buddies like Al M., Madfloyd, and Ack. My more recent, "post-tweak", sound is MUCH closer to what I experience in the concert hall and chamber settings. This is because the sound from my system now breaths, is alive, fills the room, and sounds more natural, less hifi.

My "post-tweak" sound is also a new preference precisely because it reminds me more of my live reference. My old sound had been my preference because I had not yet been exposed to the sound I now enjoy from my system. I knew no better. (There is an admission for Bonzo)

 

[PeterA]

Peter it's nice to read a journey. But I would say this is the beginning.

I suggest a slightly different way of thinking about part of the path. Don't think that other people with "natural" sounding systems have sacrificed resolution - the opposite really. Detail on the other hand is rather a heightened sense of something that really shouldn't stand out. Here's how I categorize it, are you listening to the stereo or the music? When you're listening to the music you just hear everything, you don't have to think about it. It isn't hifi at all, you don't think about judging the bass. You can evaluate the qualities in it, but you firstly think about the music and not the stereo. You aren't distracted by the qualities of the stereo. And this isn't achieved just by making sound loud and filling. Resolutions comes no matter the size of the room, the amount of treatment, or whether you're in the room or not - it's just part of hearing the music and not the stereo.

The way forward is gaining, not losing. You're using a lot of adjectives but I know there's a lot more for you to gain. There's a lot to look forward to!

Thank you Folsom. I have stated in a couple of my recent posts, that this is only the beginning of my audio walk.

I do not think that other people with "natural" sounding systems have sacrificed resolution. I agree with you. It is just the opposite. What you write hear is more or less what I have described recently in my posts. I think more about the music and not about the sound precisely because the sound is now more natural. I think less about the system and my room, and more about the music and the recording venue. It was the super black background and the spotlit details that do not sound right. Information that breathes life into the music was missing.

 

[bonzo75]

Peter, the point is, as you start your new walk, you should make sure you don't travel the same distance over many years because you know no better. Might make sense to try some drastically different philosophies before.

Also, I personally think if you want to follow David's sound philosophy, you are going to have to change gear. Magico is best served with the likes of dagostino and constellation with audiophile cables. Raw fish tastes good in sushi, not in Indian gravy, and Indian spices do not go well with sushi. You are mixing and matching philosophies.

 

[tima]

Hello Tim, I consider live acoustic music to be my reference, and always have. I have written much about this in my posts about live music events that I have attended with my Boston audio WBF buddies like Al M., Madfloyd, and Ack. My more recent, "post-tweak", sound is MUCH closer to what I experience in the concert hall and chamber settings. This is because the sound from my system now breaths, is alive, fills the room, and sounds more natural, less hifi.

My "post-tweak" sound is also a new preference precisely because it reminds me more of my live reference. My old sound had been my preference because I had not yet been exposed to the sound I now enjoy from my system. I knew no better. (There is an admission for Bonzo)

Thanks. That's kinda what I was hoping you'd say.

 

[PeterA]

Stereos play what's on the source, the stereo does not choose what to amplify except when it filters out information. For example the so-called 'blacker background' is the a absence of certain harmonic frequencies filtered out as noise.

Tim, This is what I am now hearing. The blacker backgrounds are a result of the information (certain harmonic frequencies) filtered out as noise, or otherwise missing. I wrote that I think the room treatments (absorb), pneumatic isolation (dampen), and fancy power cords (otherwise alter) information either in the signal or after the signal has left the speakers leaving behind a changed sound, one that is less natural and life like. I do not know how or why this occurs, but it seems to be what I am experiencing, and when I swap back these devices into my system, the effect is immediately noticeable now that I have been exposed to my new reference and preferred sound. For me, it has been an epiphany of sorts.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, the point is, as you start your new walk, you should make sure you don't travel the same distance over many years because you know no better. Might make sense to try some drastically b different philosophies before.

Also, I personally think if you want to follow David's sound philosophy, you are going to have to change gear. Magico is best served with the likes of dagostino and constellation with audiophile cables. Raw fish tastes good in sushi, not in Indian gravy, and Indian spices do not go well with sushi. You are mixing and matching philosophies.

You can be quite funny Bonzo. I will take your comments under advisement without much prejudice. Will you have a system before I get around to changing my Magicos? Let Yoda contemplate that one.

 

[tima]

Tim, This is what I am now hearing. The blacker backgrounds are a result of the information (certain harmonic frequencies) filtered out as noise, or otherwise missing. I wrote that I think the room treatments (absorb), pneumatic isolation (dampen), and fancy power cords (otherwise alter) information either in the signal or after the signal has left the speakers leaving behind a changed sound, one that is less natural and life like. I do not know how or why this occurs, but it seems to be what I am experiencing, and when I swap back these devices into my system, the effect is immediately noticeable now that I have been exposed to my new reference and preferred sound. For me, it has been an epiphany of sorts.

You've aligned your stereo more with your (what i'm calling) naturalist basis of preference.

 

[tima]

Regarding the impact of AC conditioners: Shunyata is indeed a great counterpoint to the assertion that current limitation is not an issue, since one of their foundational goals is to minimize this restriction, which they regard as non-trivial. Even so, in my own experience the Denali helps my source components, but my amp is happiest when plugged directly into a dedicated, high-amp AC line.

Yes - amps straight into the wall. Though I have run Typhons on each monoblock's duplex.

 

[PeterA]

You've aligned your stereo more with your (what i'm calling) naturalist basis of preference.

Is what you refer to as "Naturalist" more representative of what you hear from live performances?

 

[PeterA]

Peter, the point is, as you start your new walk, you should make sure you don't travel the same distance over many years because you know no better. Might make sense to try some drastically b different philosophies before.

Also, I personally think if you want to follow David's sound philosophy, you are going to have to change gear. Magico is best served with the likes of dagostino and constellation with audiophile cables. Raw fish tastes good in sushi, not in Indian gravy, and Indian spices do not go well with sushi. You are mixing and matching philosophies.

Bonzo, how would you describe David's sound philosophy?

Interestingly, my local Magico dealer does not carry D'Agostino, and they have not demoed Constellation when I have auditioned the Q3, S7, Q7, M3 or M2. Perhaps you should advise them.

 

[bazelio]

When I upgraded my phono stage to the Emia unit, Dave Slagle had allowed me to demo it for a couple months. It had beat out several competitors that came and went during that time, but my final hesitation was a slight hum that the unit produced. This is not audible from the listening position, but is audible about a foot from the speaker at listening volume without music playing. In talking to Dave about it, what he said was their approach was indeed to have a quiet unit from the listening position and that everything required to make a tube phono dead quiet with your ear at the speaker also sucks the life out of the music. I now agree and couldn't be happier with the unit.

I think you are experiencing the same phenomenon with room treatment and pneumatic isolation. Power cords are probably a bit different in their effect, but they clearly can add or more commonly (IME) subtract to/from the experience. As I cycled through various cords myself over time, I settled on a set that seemingly allowed my system to breathe the most freely and resulted in an effortless or unrestrained sound that filled the room. For me, these weren't Tripp Lite nor Ching Cheng. My listening room is too intimate for a concert hall to be my reference. Such a sound would be unnatural to me. I have to picture "they are here" rather than "you are there". And it is a "higher Fi" result than many people on this forum probably prefer. But it sings to me. Bonzo probably has a reasonable point to the extent that some independent experimenting may yield further improvement that would not have been revealed otherwise. I am glad you're heading in the right direction for now. I suggest staying open to further straying "off course". In the meantime, enjoy the music.

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo, how would you describe David's sound philosophy?

Interestingly, my local Magico dealer does not carry D'Agostino, and they have not demoed Constellation when I have auditioned the Q3, S7, Q7, M3 or M2. Perhaps you should advise them.

to get to natural sound one of his suggestions is that people take of what he considers foo products, that include audiophile cables and acoustic absorbers and diffusers, among other things, and viewing the stereotypical high end detailed defined sound as a negative. However, this is the exact sound that is made for Magico, and if you have that gear, you should get realism through that type of sound. Otherwise you will end up getting neither, and stuck in the middle. A bit like if Ron tried to drive Gryphon Pendragons with SETs.

My opinion is that when we start as audiophiles, dealers start us with such high end defined sound on some standard amplified records. No way when you set up your first Magico system, would you have then used good classical recordings and BSO as a reference in the same way as you do now, and your progress to the next Magico would have been on the basis of being used to that sound, and possibly getting an easier trade in to the next stage. If, as you mentioned to Tima, you are now actively looking at acoustic live classical as a reference, and moving away from the previous "high end defined sound" that you yourself had chosen, you need to re-look at your auditioning style. So you need a big bang different type of audition rather than moving step by step still having a large part of what you used before for your reference.

It's great you auditioned Q3,S7, Q7, M3, as I have heard all of them and more in non-show conditions quite well set up. So I have my own thoughts I don't feel encouraged to share

 

[DaveC]

Tim, This is what I am now hearing. The blacker backgrounds are a result of the information (certain harmonic frequencies) filtered out as noise, or otherwise missing. I wrote that I think the room treatments (absorb), pneumatic isolation (dampen), and fancy power cords (otherwise alter) information either in the signal or after the signal has left the speakers leaving behind a changed sound, one that is less natural and life like. I do not know how or why this occurs, but it seems to be what I am experiencing, and when I swap back these devices into my system, the effect is immediately noticeable now that I have been exposed to my new reference and preferred sound. For me, it has been an epiphany of sorts.

I don't think so.

The way I see it, you're using power cables that soften and warm the sound, removing the room treatments and having no toe decreases the ratio of direct to reflected sound so you're hearing more reflected sound at higher SPL. I would also say you're adding noise via the AC line.

Further, replacing footers with specific wooden oak blocks and using carefully selected power cables and setup is simply another kind of tweak, it's NOT de-tweaking.

There's absolutely no doubt you can make the sound closer to what you'd typically hear live, I was just a show last night and listened from several different positions and unless you're near front row there is a lot more reflected sound vs at home.

So I get it, and I have no issue with it, I believe people should do whatever they want and achieve whatever sound they enjoy. However, I personally think this is not a de-tweak, it is simply a re-tweak and now it's tweaked MORE than before.

Saying this type of setup is more "natural" and "de-tweaked" is a very excellent use of language by ddk but IMO it's manipulative as who wants a synthetic-sounding tweaky system? Which is what you think you had before... laughable!

I also think we're conflating hearing detail on the recording, close-mic'ed by the engineer, that was intended for you to hear in a way you'd never hear live, and trying to make it sound more like you'd hear it live. Again, nothing wrong with this AT ALL, if you love it, I'm super-happy for you, but let's call a spade a spade.