Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Oh I like YG. I think they are quite different. That said I did not see him dem horns much, and his second favorite is still devore
Peter, I think you'll find that Ked genuinely believes he knows what's best for everyone, whether or not they know it themselves. Not egotistical in the least Lol.
Oh, I mean the whole way. Find a sub $1k tt that does "naturalness" to a tee. I've never heard a Rega setup I didn't respect.
Well am not egotistical because I don't post everyweek saying I have a new epiphany about my system someone listen to me
Dave, as a designer of audiophile power cords, I completely understand your position. I have listened to both the Ching Cheng and some fancy alternatives. On a 100% subjective basis, I prefer the former in my system at this time. We have discussed this before and what I am hearing in our private communications. Yes, my preference is indeed subjective and that may not correspond with what is objective.
Damn, I forgot that this week. Gotta tell you about this change, Ked...
Peter, I get yr changes, and the mindset behind them. Your perceived uptick is all that matters. I remain perplexed that the Vibraplane has in retrospect proved to be negative under yr tt. My pneumatic tt isolation in my case has been unequivocally positive, shown each time I've supported my tt on alternative supports. Do you remain adamant Vibraplane is now not for yr SME?
Well, I can not find any meaning it that ... What is it supposed to mean?
That's more me speaking as an engineer. The result of addressing the technical issues related to cables is reviews like this:
A Technical Achievement
The ZenWave PS-14 excels in everything technical. As such, it exhibits some of the most lifelike experiences in the land of audio cables...
https://audiobacon.net/2019/08/17/27-audiophile-power-cables-reviewed/21/
Choosing a cable based on 100% subjective criteria gets you the preference of the person doing the testing, at least as far as how many samples they have to test.
I believe HiFi is literally the pursuit of high fidelity and it's not a derogatory term for a fatiguing system, but totally respect other approaches.
It means his new found sound preference is justified because someone who doesn't listen to the same music as he does concluded his search saying he might buy in future a speaker that is possibly similar to, but is not the same, as Peter's, while Kedar still doesn't have a system
Peter,
Why did you select only "fancy" products to compare with your current choices? To create a price negative bias on them?
I can't understand the ending sentence - what can we expect from power cables in objective terms? BTW, why not referring to the alternative cables by a more objective word, such as "more elaborate" or "audiophile"?
I would like to carry a civilized friendly exchange of posts with Peter in his thread. Could you at less post a smile in your comment?
I would like to carry a civilized friendly exchange of posts with Peter in his thread. Could you at less post a smile in your comment?
I lost all smiles when you posted how little you knew about 40s and 50s monos
There has been mentioning of masking of details. I can confirm that the amount of detail from Peter's system is not diminished.
Peter mentioned that I was surprised about how well behaved his room is. I am indeed. Bass is fine without tube traps. Images may be slightly more diffuse than before, but location of musicians is still very clear, so I am not sure if I quite agree with Peter about the magnitude of the sonic changes.
My own room would be unworkable without treatments. Conversely, acoustic treatments in my room have none of the adverse effects that Peter describes for his. Just this morning l was listening to Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers, and the sheer brute energy of Freddie Hubbard's trumpet on Blue Moon and of Wayne Shorter's sax on other tracks made me go "whoa!". If anything, room treatment has made my room come more alive.
Every room and situation is different, and generalizations cannot easily be made.
I do overall agree with Peter and David on pneumatic platforms, power cords and power conditioning.
Peter mentioned that I was surprised about how well behaved his room is. I am indeed. Bass is fine without tube traps. Images may be slightly more diffuse than before, but location of musicians is still very clear, so I am not sure if I quite agree with Peter about the magnitude of the sonic changes.
My own room would be unworkable without treatments. Conversely, acoustic treatments in my room have none of the adverse effects that Peter describes for his. Just this morning l was listening to Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers, and the sheer brute energy of Freddie Hubbard's trumpet on Blue Moon and of Wayne Shorter's sax on other tracks made me go "whoa!". If anything, room treatment has made my room come more alive.
Every room and situation is different, and generalizations cannot easily be made.
I do overall agree with Peter and David on pneumatic platforms, power cords and power conditioning.
The full toe out of the speakers had the greatest effect on soundstage in Peter's system. Jazz ensemble now sounds HUGE. I am still trying to figure out what that is related to; part of it seems to greater perceived distance to performers. It may take me a few more visits before I can say more about this.
I have ordered the CDs of Art Pepper's Eleven and of Count Basie's 88th Street, two of Peter's reference recordings, so that I can make better comparisons, within the limits of potentially different masterings for both media, LP and CD.
I have ordered the CDs of Art Pepper's Eleven and of Count Basie's 88th Street, two of Peter's reference recordings, so that I can make better comparisons, within the limits of potentially different masterings for both media, LP and CD.
You make a number of incorrect assumptions Dave.
You don't know what the power cords are doing nor do have any idea how much if any nor the type of noise to filter out of anyone's lines, nor if it's desired or not, but you want to filter it. What criteria are using about about adding noise via AC lines, getting rid of a synthetic black layer masking the music and background? Isn't that warming up and softening?
Hearing more harmonics is what Peter described by removing the tampon treatment not reflections at high SPLs, you're making up your own scenario here again.
He didn't replace the equipment's feet with anything, the oak is a temporary solution until he gets his rack worked out not to inject wood sound. Call it what you want it doesn't change the narrative or the transformation.
Since no one wants a synthetic sound why are so determined on people using highly manipulative, additive synthetic sounding products in their system and environment? Everything he removed had a masking and additive effect on his gear and room with even a more negative total sum on what he ended up hearing. What am I manipulating Dave? Isn't removing products that do things to the sound by definition de-tweaking and adding them in tweaking?
I don't want to argue recording techniques and why, so let's go with you wrote. If the recording is any good De-tweaking, ie removing and not using sound shaping, sound altering, or masking products from the environment will at the very least, given the equipment have enough resolution, allow one to hear cleaner tones, more accurate timbre, deeper tonal range and diverse ambience closer to "real" and "natural"?
All Peter did was remove products that had a negative effect on resolution and repositioned his speakers in the space for better performance, is this your definition of tweaking?
[/QUOTE]Also, as I keep saying, I have no issue with your preferences, but I think it's characterization isn't accurate. CC cables are super-tweaky. You can't even get the same ones right now, just like the Iron-Lung Jellyfish, certain Volex power cables, White Lightening Moonshine speaker cables and all the other similar low-cost tweak products people have found by 100% subjective evaluation over the years.[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to understand the term super tweaky in respect to a mass produced industrial power cord with no claims of doing anything besides supply power to equipment vs a "Designed" one built from curated parts that all do something for the purpose of altering and shaping what you hear in the "Designer's" image!
Use whatever terminology you like Dave for your application of materials wood coaster serve a different purpose in Peter's application and may or may not remain down the line.
You don't know what the power cords are doing nor do have any idea how much if any nor the type of noise to filter out of anyone's lines, nor if it's desired or not, but you want to filter it. What criteria are using about about adding noise via AC lines, getting rid of a synthetic black layer masking the music and background? Isn't that warming up and softening?
Hearing more harmonics is what Peter described by removing the tampon treatment not reflections at high SPLs, you're making up your own scenario here again.
He didn't replace the equipment's feet with anything, the oak is a temporary solution until he gets his rack worked out not to inject wood sound. Call it what you want it doesn't change the narrative or the transformation.
Since no one wants a synthetic sound why are so determined on people using highly manipulative, additive synthetic sounding products in their system and environment? Everything he removed had a masking and additive effect on his gear and room with even a more negative total sum on what he ended up hearing. What am I manipulating Dave? Isn't removing products that do things to the sound by definition de-tweaking and adding them in tweaking?
I don't want to argue recording techniques and why, so let's go with you wrote. If the recording is any good De-tweaking, ie removing and not using sound shaping, sound altering, or masking products from the environment will at the very least, given the equipment have enough resolution, allow one to hear cleaner tones, more accurate timbre, deeper tonal range and diverse ambience closer to "real" and "natural"?
All Peter did was remove products that had a negative effect on resolution and repositioned his speakers in the space for better performance, is this your definition of tweaking?
[/QUOTE]Also, as I keep saying, I have no issue with your preferences, but I think it's characterization isn't accurate. CC cables are super-tweaky. You can't even get the same ones right now, just like the Iron-Lung Jellyfish, certain Volex power cables, White Lightening Moonshine speaker cables and all the other similar low-cost tweak products people have found by 100% subjective evaluation over the years.[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to understand the term super tweaky in respect to a mass produced industrial power cord with no claims of doing anything besides supply power to equipment vs a "Designed" one built from curated parts that all do something for the purpose of altering and shaping what you hear in the "Designer's" image
!Use whatever terminology you like Dave for your application of materials wood coaster serve a different purpose in Peter's application and may or may not remain down the line.
Again, the answer to this is available if you want it... isn't modern tech and science awesome?
On the room treatments, I'd consider the least "tweaky" setup to give you the most optimal frequency response and decay times. If you can post on this forum, you can use a Dayton Omnimic system. IMO it's a good idea to invest in one, it may give you additional insight into why you're hearing what you do.
While we can't know exactly how the system the recording engineers used sounds, as there is no exact standard, I'd argue that if the room treatments improve frequency response and the decay times are considered fairly normal, then you're hearing something closer to what the folks making the recording intended.
If not, you're changing the intent of the recording, which again, is perfectly fine if you enjoy it. It's really just the definition of what "tweaky" and "natural" and all these ddk terms really mean. Using "natural" and "de-tweaked" is loaded language in that nobody is going to say "I prefer my synthetic-sounding tweaky system". And the real truth is these things are more tweaky, not less, if you go by the traditional goal and definition of high fidelity audio and want to hear the recording as intended as much as possible.
Similar threads
