Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Yep Dave, I'd be slapping Peter on the back had he reported in exactly verbatim wording, as a result of a pricey pwr cord to his tt motor. Yes, absolutely.
And only used on Sundays by a 80 year old man !You are starting to sound like a used car salesman Francisco
Never said so or was told of it. The Lamm's are well used and are old - I sate it clearly in the adverts.
Unfortunately they are still here. I usually buy the gear I want to try because I need a long time to evaluate it, so I buy and sell a lot, although mainly used at nice prices. Fortunately this happens very seldom, sometimes friends press me to sell my equipment ...
And that you would’ve been able to relate to. And probably felt warm about. The problem is that I am removing audiophile accessories while you wax poetically about adding audiophile accessories.
David,
Fortunately your words are clear and exact - as you know I do not object to your methodologies and aims, I understand and appreciate them. However it is not what is being told in this thread and several others. People just replace tweaks by other tweaks, keeping their favorite ones, and consider that they get natural sound, using as main criteria their own reference sounds. They enjoy what they are doing but are far from being simple most of the time.
As I said my interest is not on the equipment, just on the explanations of how it is working and the why's. For example I consider that all power cords are colored, from Nordost Odin to Ching Cheng.
BTW, as far as I remember you never talked about "energy management", the concept that is being discussed.
Peter, you've replace a Vibraplane with steel plate, and one named power cord with another. Swapping deck chairs on the Titanic means you're still on the Titanic.
But the band playing sounds better from his deck chair Marc !
Actually, I didn't replace anything to get to a more natural sound, and just shuffled around my setup, and removed a few acoustic accessories (TubeTraps; I did keep three essential ones of these).
I did add for my source components two industrial medical grade isolation transformers, of the decidedly non-audiophile sort, as always feeding the usual standard power cords that are considered "junk" by some audiophiles. One transformer I had had already and added back, another one I bought, at a cost of about $ 470 with tax. Now, if it had been 20 grand, then we'd be talking.
That's not quite right David. The conversation would be very different and the cult thing would not have thought of if Peter had not mentioned the name ddk.
That's not quite right David. The conversation would be very different and the cult thing would not have thought of if Peter had not mentioned the name ddk.
No dear Tang, everything started long ago with the Boston Tea Party ...
No dear Tang, everything started long ago with the Boston Tea Party ...
Yes and the revolt against taxes continues.
Members of this Boston group Are now moving in very different directions.
Last edited:
I'm very happy that you approve of my post
! Replacing tweaks with other tweaks isn't what happened it's a claim made by others, the opposition.
In the past I only touched on some aspects of the listening space but never talked about energy management because it's not something that normally comes up. Usually I'm in the room and I deal with the issues, not something I need to explain normally. In Peter's case we discussed things remotely and there was a need to explain and define what he was looking to do, which is energy management vs energy absorption or other strategies.
david
That’s pretty funny but not quite correct Marc. I removed three Vibraplanes (well deflated two, removed one). I always had the three steel plates for those and I kept them just adding the rubber O-rings. I added five more steel plates to mass load my rack. I’ve also removed four Townsend seismic sinks.
I removed all nine acoustic treatments. I replaced all transparent cabling and power cords. I replaced my fancy phono cable with the stock SME phono cable. I got rid of the Furitech IEC plugs into my amplifiers. I repositioned my speakers. And I bought a new cartridge and new preamplifier. I got rid of my power distribution box.
I moved my deck chair from the corner behind the smokestack to the deck on the bow and now get the views, all the sun and breeze and ocean spray.
And the band plays on.
Last edited:
That's not quite right David. The conversation would be very different and the cult thing would not have thought of if Peter had not mentioned the name ddk.
Yes Tang, And I give credit where credit is due. David gave me advice, shared his experience, and pointed me in the right direction. From there I did the experiments, I did the listening, and I did the learning. I would not have gotten to where I am now without David’s advice.
Al M has heard the results and described his listening impressions from the other night.
I've touched on this before. Certainly setup makes a difference but gear probably makes a bigger difference - imo. Granted, even the best gear can sound mediocre if it is not in an optimal set up. But one can spend countless hours on setup, even achieving good results, and still not attain what better or different components can yield. Yes, it's a subjective experience hobby, but imo some gear is better than others.
I've found many people appreciate articles on 'how to' achieve better results with better set-up. Most of those are about speaker positioning or the interrelationship of cartridge variables. There is only so much one can do without changing equipment at some level. Arrange your cables to minimize EMI cross pollination? Clean your cable connectors twice a year!
Ah that one. Lindbergh rode in it from Le Bourget through Paris to his hotel, after crossing the Atlantic.
I agree that gear is important, and as you say, you cannot get beyond a certain level without better components. However, it does not make a bigger difference than setup. The latter is at least as important.
In fact, I would say the better the gear, the more important is optimal setup to get the most out of it. You can put a boombox anywhere in a room and it will make music, and chasing better "set-up" will hardly make it sound better or worse. But the better the gear, the more a less optimal setup will reveal deficiencies in the sound -- or to put it positively, the more a better setup will show what it really is capable of -- precisely because the gear is so revealing.
Okay.
I was responding to micro's post and offered my response (that you quoted) in its context:
(my emphasis)
In two optimally set up systems, one usually gets more satisfying results from better components.
In a B-level system optimal setup will not achieve the same results as in an A-level system. One system cannot be turned into another by setup, though it can be improved. Note the conclusion I offered: "imo some gear is better than others." The implied response to micro being: yes, there is value in describing a component's sound and one's experience listening to it.
I'm very happy that you approve of my post
Replacing tweaks with other tweaks isn't what happened it's a claim made by others, the opposition.
In the past I only touched on some aspects of the listening space but never talked about energy management because it's not something that normally comes up. Usually I'm in the room and I deal with the issues, not something I need to explain normally. In Peter's case we discussed things remotely and there was a need to explain and define what he was looking to do, which is energy management vs energy absorption or other strategies.
david
Altough I do not consider myself as "opposition" - I say it is really what really happened. Most people keep their preferred tweaks (irrespective of price) . But yes, we also have different views on what are tweaks, we had a good thread on this subject.
Your answer including "energy management vs energy absorption" proves my point. A speech with plenty of ambiguity there, so that we can include or exclude anything.
Similar threads
