The big sound
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
Do you think a DIY system can be the big sound too ?
Most people in this forum are Hi End guys, not too many DIYERS here, also diy project means save money can't present Hi End level, but some diy projects with a new idea that is one of the kind or projects with highest quality parts that brand name makers will never use because cost too much , these projects can provide the sound that you can't find from market, in my system I build all amps and cables with my own design, all power amps with NOS transmitting tube in SE ,in a 4 horn speakers system, all cable in silver with power shielding, source by modified with tubes Studer A810, Benz Micro Ruby and a Clearaudio TT drive by a direct drive TT with a elastic thread as the belt etc, I believe the sound of my system can be a big sound too
tony ma
Most people in this forum are Hi End guys, not too many DIYERS here, also diy project means save money can't present Hi End level, but some diy projects with a new idea that is one of the kind or projects with highest quality parts that brand name makers will never use because cost too much , these projects can provide the sound that you can't find from market, in my system I build all amps and cables with my own design, all power amps with NOS transmitting tube in SE ,in a 4 horn speakers system, all cable in silver with power shielding, source by modified with tubes Studer A810, Benz Micro Ruby and a Clearaudio TT drive by a direct drive TT with a elastic thread as the belt etc, I believe the sound of my system can be a big sound too
tony ma
I've heard quite a few Tony. The best horn system I've ever heard is Victor Sierra's formerly of Sierra-Brooks. He makes his own horns for his exotic drivers. Like you he uses multiple pairs of one-off DHT SET amps. It sounded HUGE when the recordings were huge and small when the recordings were as well. It was a real treat for me. So I'd give a big fat YES to your question.
still objectionable
I read you post several times before I wrote my reply. My interpretation of your post hasn't changed. You wanted some information to allow you to dismiss the posts of people you disagree with.
In your original post, you said
"I get a kick out of people who don't really have a listening room and can't set up anything analog in their system and yet pronounce digital to be the end-all of music reproduction"
Your remark appears to be a reaction to some posts you have read. How do you know what experience those people have had in the past or what their current situation is? How do you know what knowledge about audio playback they base their remarks on?
Bill
I read you post several times before I wrote my reply. My interpretation of your post hasn't changed. You wanted some information to allow you to dismiss the posts of people you disagree with.
In your original post, you said
"I get a kick out of people who don't really have a listening room and can't set up anything analog in their system and yet pronounce digital to be the end-all of music reproduction"
Your remark appears to be a reaction to some posts you have read. How do you know what experience those people have had in the past or what their current situation is? How do you know what knowledge about audio playback they base their remarks on?
Bill
Yes, the system was working well. Trouble is, people think that certain styles of sounds are associated with certain types of setups, when the truth is that the sounds will completely converge in character as systems of radically different makeup improve, that is, reduce audible weaknesses (quite audible sigh arises from somewhere in the background).
The horns are extremely efficient, the amps are loafing along, barely having to try, there is such low electronic stress in the system that my notorious low-level distortion is even lower than normal. Jack, back then, you had a taste of the sound of muralman1's system, and what I keep babbling on about ...
Frank
Now this we agree on, Frank. Headroom is fundamental. I approach it from the opposite angle, but the goal is similar.
Tim
That is certainly true. My big OMA New Yorker Horns only require between 1/2 to 2 1/2 watts which is a very easy load for my 25 watt Class A First Watt M2 power amp.
Rich
Frank, I'm just going to go out and say it. False modesty is unbecoming of grown men and buddy Frantz has called me on it already. Hahahaha. I get the illusion very well and quite consistently at home BUT I also get it at the homes of many of my friends. I don't have a monopoly on the magic. DIY, Vintage, Value Oriented or assaults on the SOTA. Good sound is good sound and good sound means I get to enjoy the music more. I do not discriminate. The systems don't even sound the same but still....there is always something special that shines through when someone who knows what he's doing puts his back into the work required. That's why I am not keen on supporting some unified goal for all to strive for be it Big Sound or Invisible Speakers. I'm cool if it's about equality, world peace or the eradication of violence but not audio. I love the diversity of this hobby.
Allow me to explain. When I visit another person's home, I do not assess the system on how it compares to mine or how much it is to my liking. That's the reason that if i bring source material at all, I ask to play only a handful of intimately familiar tracks at the very beginning just to get myself calibrated with the system and the room. In really good systems it only takes a track or two. The second track being a bit of self indulgence
What gives me a lift is hearing the host's favorite tracks because it gives me more insight into how, what and why he's made his choices in an hour than he could if he wrote a novel about it. That I may come across some killer new tracks is one very cool side benefit In any case, like I said good sound is good sound. There will always be even the slightest emphasis on some or many aspects of the sound that reflects positively on the owner. It could be a certain tonal balance, clarity, slam, spread, texture whatever. In the end there will be a unique mix of attributes that may never be replicated elsewhere. I believe in integrity but not neutrality. That's where I'm heading here. There is a sense of individuality, of customization that deserves appreciation. Some systems can have serious short comings but if it can do one thing well enough, that alone can make you see past the omissions. In the other thread I think C1Ferrari said "ala LS3/5a". It's a perfect example. It's almost as old as I am, has no bass extension, has dips and humps, has a cabinet that resonates, uses no exotic passive parts but hot dang when set up right can still give anybody goosebumps. Now when someone can get that kind of a reaction from anything, the guy deserves some props in my book.
My room is dead quiet and I've got way more clean power than my 94dB speakers need. I'm also very, very happy with both my analog and digital sources. I give up before the system does SPL wise. It's just that I stopped comparing my system to the live experience some time ago. I know I've done all I can afford in time, effort and money at least for now. It doesn't mean I'm any less satisfied than Vince. It only means I don't think I've got perfection. It only means I've got everything set up as best I can to my personal preferences. I don't think I've got perfection because to get to this point I know exactly what trade offs I've had to make for enjoyment's sake. Perfection means not having to make any trade-offs. Alas this ain't a perfect world.
So we go back to the recordings because they are MY reasons for the trade-offs. I can't go around tweaking to make one track or even an entire genre sound perfect to the detriment of the thousands of other songs in my analog, optical and drive library. No single setting can do it all so I've striven for a balance between getting the best out of the best recordings while leaving enough leeway so as not to make songs I love that are badly recorded totally unlistenable. All this so I can spend time doing what I should be doing, sitting my ass down and enjoying it all.
Allow me to explain. When I visit another person's home, I do not assess the system on how it compares to mine or how much it is to my liking. That's the reason that if i bring source material at all, I ask to play only a handful of intimately familiar tracks at the very beginning just to get myself calibrated with the system and the room. In really good systems it only takes a track or two. The second track being a bit of self indulgence
What gives me a lift is hearing the host's favorite tracks because it gives me more insight into how, what and why he's made his choices in an hour than he could if he wrote a novel about it. That I may come across some killer new tracks is one very cool side benefit In any case, like I said good sound is good sound. There will always be even the slightest emphasis on some or many aspects of the sound that reflects positively on the owner. It could be a certain tonal balance, clarity, slam, spread, texture whatever. In the end there will be a unique mix of attributes that may never be replicated elsewhere. I believe in integrity but not neutrality. That's where I'm heading here. There is a sense of individuality, of customization that deserves appreciation. Some systems can have serious short comings but if it can do one thing well enough, that alone can make you see past the omissions. In the other thread I think C1Ferrari said "ala LS3/5a". It's a perfect example. It's almost as old as I am, has no bass extension, has dips and humps, has a cabinet that resonates, uses no exotic passive parts but hot dang when set up right can still give anybody goosebumps. Now when someone can get that kind of a reaction from anything, the guy deserves some props in my book.My room is dead quiet and I've got way more clean power than my 94dB speakers need. I'm also very, very happy with both my analog and digital sources. I give up before the system does SPL wise. It's just that I stopped comparing my system to the live experience some time ago. I know I've done all I can afford in time, effort and money at least for now. It doesn't mean I'm any less satisfied than Vince. It only means I don't think I've got perfection. It only means I've got everything set up as best I can to my personal preferences. I don't think I've got perfection because to get to this point I know exactly what trade offs I've had to make for enjoyment's sake. Perfection means not having to make any trade-offs. Alas this ain't a perfect world.
So we go back to the recordings because they are MY reasons for the trade-offs. I can't go around tweaking to make one track or even an entire genre sound perfect to the detriment of the thousands of other songs in my analog, optical and drive library. No single setting can do it all so I've striven for a balance between getting the best out of the best recordings while leaving enough leeway so as not to make songs I love that are badly recorded totally unlistenable. All this so I can spend time doing what I should be doing, sitting my ass down and enjoying it all.
Jack, Thank you, I try to tell you the way how I listen to my system, I am not a digital guy but still have a CD source, if I have to listen to CD I will stop listen to the main system for a few days, only in car's radio during driving, and then step by step CD to vinyl and to tape, even in vinyl only I never start with the best recording first,
DHT SET is the best sounding amp over all but less of power, you must have the right speaker, horn is the good partner for them, transmitting NOS tube in SET is another story they can have as big as 50 to 100 watts, but cost of the parts quite cost a lot and most is in diy, Wavac and Kondo have some but cost too much
ton ma
i purchased a different home and built a room in a barn (partially) because i wanted a system that was capable of doing a 'big' sound.....space.....deep bass....and big time ambience and bass decay. to me it's the ability of a system to lay down that ambient foundation, which takes fairly deep bass and a low noise floor as well as the ability to move some air in a linear way.
of course; it took 6 years in the new room to actually figure out how to get all those things to happen.
when a recording has a 'big' sound, i'm confident i can now get that sound.
this does happen more with analog than with digital, but it's more a matter of degrees of this than one can and one cannot.
i find that my 45rpm Lps seem to most consistently be able to throw an enormous soundstage and energize every molecule in the room. i had 5.1 multi-channel SACD in the room for about 18 months, and some of those could really fill the room. but the 45rpm's do some things with 'big-ness' thay even multi-channel did not do in terms of endless decay.
the one recording that comes to mind in terms of a 'big' sound is actually not even music; it's a redbook CD called 'Open Pipe Symphony'. it's 16 tracks of race cars on the track and in a garage. musical instruments are toys compared to what how a raceing engine can throw off low frequencies and reasonance. you can cut the ambience with a knife. you feel it in your bones.
of course; it took 6 years in the new room to actually figure out how to get all those things to happen.
when a recording has a 'big' sound, i'm confident i can now get that sound.
this does happen more with analog than with digital, but it's more a matter of degrees of this than one can and one cannot.
i find that my 45rpm Lps seem to most consistently be able to throw an enormous soundstage and energize every molecule in the room. i had 5.1 multi-channel SACD in the room for about 18 months, and some of those could really fill the room. but the 45rpm's do some things with 'big-ness' thay even multi-channel did not do in terms of endless decay.
the one recording that comes to mind in terms of a 'big' sound is actually not even music; it's a redbook CD called 'Open Pipe Symphony'. it's 16 tracks of race cars on the track and in a garage. musical instruments are toys compared to what how a raceing engine can throw off low frequencies and reasonance. you can cut the ambience with a knife. you feel it in your bones.
Frank, I'm just going to go out and say it. False modesty is unbecoming of grown men and buddy Frantz has called me on it already. Hahahaha. I get the illusion very well and quite consistently at home BUT I also get it at the homes of many of my friends. I don't have a monopoly on the magic. DIY, Vintage, Value Oriented or assaults on the SOTA. Good sound is good sound and good sound means I get to enjoy the music more. I do not discriminate. The systems don't even sound the same but still....there is always something special that shines through when someone who knows what he's doing puts his back into the work required. That's why I am not keen on supporting some unified goal for all to strive for be it Big Sound or Invisible Speakers. I'm cool if it's about equality, world peace or the eradication of violence but not audio. I love the diversity of this hobby.
Allow me to explain. When I visit another person's home, I do not assess the system on how it compares to mine or how much it is to my liking. That's the reason that if i bring source material at all, I ask to play only a handful of intimately familiar tracks at the very beginning just to get myself calibrated with the system and the room. In really good systems it only takes a track or two. The second track being a bit of self indulgence
My room is dead quiet and I've got way more clean power than my 94dB speakers need. I'm also very, very happy with both my analog and digital sources. I give up before the system does SPL wise. It's just that I stopped comparing my system to the live experience some time ago. I know I've done all I can afford in time, effort and money at least for now. It doesn't mean I'm any less satisfied than Vince. It only means I don't think I've got perfection. It only means I've got everything set up as best I can to my personal preferences. I don't think I've got perfection because to get to this point I know exactly what trade offs I've had to make for enjoyment's sake. Perfection means not having to make any trade-offs. Alas this ain't a perfect world.
So we go back to the recordings because they are MY reasons for the trade-offs. I can't go around tweaking to make one track or even an entire genre sound perfect to the detriment of the thousands of other songs in my analog, optical and drive library. No single setting can do it all so I've striven for a balance between getting the best out of the best recordings while leaving enough leeway so as not to make songs I love that are badly recorded totally unlistenable. All this so I can spend time doing what I should be doing, sitting my ass down and enjoying it all.
Oh my...that was just...so...reasonable!
I agree completely. It's about compromises and targets. Choosing them and pursuing them. It's about knowing what you want and maximizing that in your system. Mep and Mike are going for BIG, full-range, large room pressurizing sound in a massive sound stage. To be honest, I'd go for that too if I had the physical space for it, but I'd still have the systems I have today because I'm deep into something else at the opposite extreme -- listening deep into the recording, where I can hear how close the singer's lips are to the microphone, identify the body size of the acoustic guitar being strummed in the background and even speculate on the weight of the pick. Extreme, yes surreal, pinpoint imaging, and an extreme, yes surreal, window into modern recordings. I don't attempt to reproduce a live performance in any way, I only attempt to hear the recording. So I listen to active monitors in a near field configuration; I have a reference headphone system. And they get me where I want to go. As I said before, if I had the space, I'd also have a pair of Linkwitz Orions filling a huge space in a big room. But this system on my desktop? It would still be my primary system, because this is my preference. Viva la difference.
Tim
Bill-I don't want to fight with you or anyone else. Sorry if you got your nose out of joint.
Frank, I'm just going to go out and say it. False modesty is unbecoming of grown men and buddy Frantz has called me on it already. Hahahaha. I get the illusion very well and quite consistently at home BUT I also get it at the homes of many of my friends. I don't have a monopoly on the magic. DIY, Vintage, Value Oriented or assaults on the SOTA. Good sound is good sound and good sound means I get to enjoy the music more. I do not discriminate. The systems don't even sound the same but still....there is always something special that shines through when someone who knows what he's doing puts his back into the work required. That's why I am not keen on supporting some unified goal for all to strive for be it Big Sound or Invisible Speakers. I'm cool if it's about equality, world peace or the eradication of violence but not audio. I love the diversity of this hobby.
Allow me to explain. When I visit another person's home, I do not assess the system on how it compares to mine or how much it is to my liking. That's the reason that if i bring source material at all, I ask to play only a handful of intimately familiar tracks at the very beginning just to get myself calibrated with the system and the room. In really good systems it only takes a track or two. The second track being a bit of self indulgence
My room is dead quiet and I've got way more clean power than my 94dB speakers need. I'm also very, very happy with both my analog and digital sources. I give up before the system does SPL wise. It's just that I stopped comparing my system to the live experience some time ago. I know I've done all I can afford in time, effort and money at least for now. It doesn't mean I'm any less satisfied than Vince. It only means I don't think I've got perfection. It only means I've got everything set up as best I can to my personal preferences. I don't think I've got perfection because to get to this point I know exactly what trade offs I've had to make for enjoyment's sake. Perfection means not having to make any trade-offs. Alas this ain't a perfect world.
So we go back to the recordings because they are MY reasons for the trade-offs. I can't go around tweaking to make one track or even an entire genre sound perfect to the detriment of the thousands of other songs in my analog, optical and drive library. No single setting can do it all so I've striven for a balance between getting the best out of the best recordings while leaving enough leeway so as not to make songs I love that are badly recorded totally unlistenable. All this so I can spend time doing what I should be doing, sitting my ass down and enjoying it all.
Somehow I am unable to reconcile the notion of trade offs with this system.
Attachments
Kal-A digital-only person, "even today" as you put it who formerly owned and listened to analog has a perspective to draw on when forming conclusions about the different mediums and I never meant to imply anything different. The quality of the analog owned once upon a time can have a serious impact on the perspective however.
Similar threads
