Visit to Marc C.'s (SpiritOfMusic's) House in England

[DaveyF]

Ok, so think about it

This seems to me to be nothing more than a big assumption, a guess. I do not know how you could possibly know this as a matter of fact a priori.

Ok, so how’s this....how many times can you remember that marginal recording vs. how many times can you recollect and remember that awesome recording.…

Having spoken to numerous people in the many years that I have been in this hobby, not once have I ever had the example of a great recording not being recognized as such by everyone that heard it...regardless of the system quality, or lack thereof. OTOH, how many times have we been enamoured of the marginal recording...irrespective of the quality of the system.Therefore, is what I posted an assumption?

 

[DaveyF]

I have no complaints, most of my prog sounds good to great, and I'd much rather listen to those than "For Duke".
Problem with most rock albums are the excessive overdubbing and channel bouncing. Prog is excessive by design, so when all you had was 8/16 channels, there was a whole lot of bouncing going on. I believe Jack touched on this subject on a different thread, quite correctly.
That's why a lot of those new remixes sound great, in spite of being completely digital. When you remove all these tape generations and go back to the multi track tapes to remix, all the clarity is there. Not even the best sounding "Aqualung" can compare to the SW remix, in sheer transparency/clarity.
I know that album well, and I tell you, I've never heard it sound better than the SW remix through a SELECT DAC

Alex, you and I are both big fans of prog. However, I cannot name one prog record that I think has superb sound quality...not one. My example of ‘For Duke’ was given, because that record has superb SQ. Were not talking about whether one likes the music content or not...just about the quality of the recording. IMHO, ‘For Duke’ is in a totally different league SQ wise to any Prog record that I have ever heard...totally different league...unfortunately.

Alex, if you can name just one prog album that has the same SQ as ‘For Duke’...I’m buying it right away.( and from you if you have it in stock or can get it for me)

 

[asiufy]

There are direct to disc prog albums, but they're not acoustic, like "For Duke", so it's hard to compare.
FM "Headroom" (also known as "Direct to Disc") is a great album, great SQ and great music as well.
Maybe you just ascribe greater importance to sound quality than I do, because, as I said, I enjoy my prog a lot, even though none of it is recorded direct to disc or with anything approaching audiophile quality.
I believe Ken (lasercd) has a keener ear for SQ in prog, so he might be able to point to an album or two...

 

[DaveyF]

There are direct to disc prog albums, but they're not acoustic, like "For Duke", so it's hard to compare.
FM "Headroom" (also known as "Direct to Disc") is a great album, great SQ and great music as well.
Maybe you just ascribe greater importance to sound quality than I do, because, as I said, I enjoy my prog a lot, even though none of it is recorded direct to disc or with anything approaching audiophile quality.
I believe Ken (lasercd) has a keener ear for SQ in prog, so he might be able to point to an album or two...

Interesting comment. I cannot imagine why I would ascribe greater importance to SQ than you do....I believe we are the same in this aspect. You don’t like poor quality recordings and neither do I. OTOH, perhaps we listen for different things in the recording. I am very interested in hearing what the reproduction of the ‘live’ event sounds like, and playing instruments myself, I do think that may give me a slightly different bent on this aspect. However, you totally know good sound when you hear it. Perhaps you do have a slightly higher tolerance for the recording quality than I do (or lack thereof) and can excuse it due to the quality of the music. I used to be able to do that more when i was younger and listening to prog almost exclusively ...so perhaps you are correct in that regard?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ok, so think about it


Ok, so how’s this....how many times can you remember that marginal recording vs. how many times can you recollect and remember that awesome recording.…

Having spoken to numerous people in the many years that I have been in this hobby, not once have I ever had the example of a great recording not being recognized as such by everyone that heard it...regardless of the system quality, or lack thereof. OTOH, how many times have we been enamoured of the marginal recording...irrespective of the quality of the system.Therefore, is what I posted an assumption?

I think this is inapposite and misleading. Since there are fewer great recordings than average recordings of course it is easier to recall the great recording because they stand out as a result of being fewer in number.and thus easier to remember.

 

[DaveyF]

I think this is inapposite and misleading. Since there are fewer great recordings than average recordings of course it is easier to recall the great recording because they stand out as a result of being fewer in number.and thus easier to remember.

Are you saying that if there would be an equal number of great recordings and marginal recordings, that one would not be able to determine which were the preferred recordings?
Somehow, I don’t believe that, lol

IOW, it’s the quality of the recording that stands out...not how rare it is in relation to the norm.IMHO.

 

[Lagonda]

We do share taste in music, that is for sure, and some of those are well recorded.

 

[PeterA]

When a new visitor comes over to hear our systems for the first time, do we first play mediocre or really good recordings for him to hear? This decision is usually driven by our wanting to make a positive impression about the quality of the system on the listener. We want to impress him and that usually suggests a better quality recording.

If the listener brings his own recordings to hear on a new system, does he bring mediocre or really good recordings with him? This decision is often driven by his wanting to assess the quality of the system with familiar recordings. I have found that this is often less dependant on recording quality.

One of Ron's go-to LPs, is "For Duke". Another recording is the Sheffield Thelma Houston, "I've Got the Music in Me".

 

[microstrip]

At some point we must forget looking just at our belly button and think why realism can be important in sound reproduction. We do not want realism as a main objective of sound reproduction - we know that the best sound reproduction can not reproduce the real scene, or aims at it. We want an enjoyable sound reproduction and for some of us, some realism traits are fundamental for enjoyment. However, in high-end systems, these particular aspects are too specific to each listener.

No one knows exactly how a recording should sound - at best all we have are a few ideas of how the event has sounded in real performances. IMHO we should explain why we are finding something enjoyable, not just that according to our particular violin or piano scale it is a 5.

BTW we should remember that our definition of recording quality is extremely subjective and there is a lot of disagreement on it. Unless we nominate specific recordings, posts can be very ambiguous. I usually do not refer to great recordings in an absolute way - just to recordings that I have listened sounding exceptionally good in great systems - surely IMHO.

 

[asiufy]

When a new visitor comes over to hear our systems for the first time, do we first play mediocre or really good recordings for him to hear? This decision is usually driven by our wanting to make a positive impression about the quality of the system on the listener. We want to impress him and that usually suggests a better quality recording.

If the listener brings his own recordings to hear on a new system, does he bring mediocre or really good recordings with him? This decision is often driven by his wanting to assess the quality of the system with familiar recordings. I have found that this is often less dependant on recording quality.

One of Ron's go-to LPs, is "For Duke". Another recording is the Sheffield Thelma Houston, "I've Got the Music in Me".

Peter,

It depends. I try to play music that the listener will have a remote chance of liking. If the person is an audiophile, then yeah, there's a greater concern for sound quality. But I've had tons of friends over at my house that shared my love for a particular music genre, and so they were there to listen to music, so I just picked records that I liked from my collection, and that I felt they'd enjoy, regardless of sound quality.

My experience is that, for non-audiophiles, just about any ol' recording will be a revelation to them, in a properly setup audiophile system. People just don't have the exposure to this level of sound reproduction, so even a compressed recording from the 70s will sound magnificent to their ears.

As I always say, in this hobby, it's all in your references.

Now, in the store, whenever we do events, I usually pick recordings that sound good but are not audiophile staples.


cheers,
alex

 

[PeterA]

I agree Alex. I should have been more clear that by "visitor comes over to hear our systems for the first time", that I was talking about audiophiles visiting to hear a specific system and gauge its quality, the kind of thing that Kedar (Bonzo) does. He brings his own LPs that, presumably, are well recorded.

I ask people what they want to hear also, whether they are audiophiles or not. Just the other night, friends came over for drinks and coffee after dinner out. One asked to hear some Fischer Dieskau, nice for late night listening. I found an LP which is a "metal master disk"/digital recording. It sounded wonderful, both musically, and sonically.

 

[bonzo75]

Peter, I have good and bad recordings. The whole set of recordings is such that I can try and get a feel of individual timbres, complexity resolution, individual hifi attributes, and transparency to recordings. For auditioning for me it's also important that the segment used for auditioning can be accessed easily and quickly. There are segments I will let play over a longer period to get a feel once I have liked something

 

[DaveyF]

Playing most audiophile approved records for visitors is almost guaranteed to insure boredom. Unless the guest is an audiophile themselves.
OTOH, I have seen that when I play some of the better jazz records..
For example Blue note originals or some of the best jazz reissues...like the Music Matters LP’s, it always elicits amazement and enjoyment.

 

[PeterA]

I have not mentioned anything about "audiophile approved" recordings being important. I just mentioned "For Duke" and the Sheffield "Thelma Houston" LP because Ron likes those and brought the latter on his visit to my house. I am simply talking about "good" recordings in the same sense that other here have been describing the progressive rock catalog as sounding fairly mediocre. For me, the music trumps the recording quality, and when both are good, listening can be an even better experience, especially on a better system, (all dependent on the listener's preferences and tastes.)

 

[spiritofmusic]

So, as good friend and "trusted pair of ears/tell me how it is" Barry Blue58 left my place, leaving more qs than answers, and my little meltdown online here being defensive towards suggestions aimed at helping me, I've put a few more changes in place, and feel I've addressed some reservations Barry had, while improving things to my own ears.

So I've installed Siemens NOS 6N23P tubes in my Nat Utopia preamp. It's debatable whether they're better than my NOS Voskhod Rockets, so still deliberating.

GIK room treatments are back in, front wall corner bass traps doubled up, panels on front wall centre and behind Zus, reflection points on side walls.

Arya Audio RevOPods under Zus replacing bespoke footers.

Zus now sited on 1" thick Panzerholz plinths, on pre existing Symposium Svelte Shelves, on floor.

Tube dampers removed, VTA adjusted for each lp, and critically I'm boosting Zus subs output.

Now I've too often crowed about improvements wrought, but I do feel I've addressed shortcomings pointed out to me, maybe not wholly, but some of the way, whilst picking up on a serious uptick in enjoyment.

In terms of my current gear, I'm only planning some ongoing mods to current Sablon Elites pwr cords, and maybe some additional GIKs to address eaves related reflections.

I'm also seriously considering subdividing my space in half, to go from 48' total depth to 24', obviously my 18' width and 9' ht stays the same.

This is twofold, to enable my space to load better w bass.

And in preparation for possible move to high efficiency field coil horns using less powerful amps than my 70W Nats.

This latter change, which would be the most radical one since I went SETs/high efficiency full range Zus, is only tentative, and so many things would have to be right for me to swap at this late stage in my audio building career.

But reducing size of room to a still respectable 24x18x9, makes sense whether I keep the Zus to boost their bass performance, or go up a level to very revealing horns and lower power SETs.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Marc, just thinking if it was an operable partition you could choose whether to use the long version of the room for the horns and then simply close it down as an option for the Zus or low level listening or when you want a more energised nearfield experience.

 

[asiufy]

Marc,

I know what I say counts for little But I wouldn't change the size of your room. That's the wrong approach. There is an ideal position for the speakers as well as your listening position, within that big room. You probably haven't found it yet.


cheers,
Alex

 

[Tango]

So, as good friend and "trusted pair of ears/tell me how it is" Barry Blue58 left my place, leaving more qs than answers, and my little meltdown online here being defensive towards suggestions aimed at helping me, I've put a few more changes in place, and feel I've addressed some reservations Barry had, while improving things to my own ears.

So I've installed Siemens NOS 6N23P tubes in my Nat Utopia preamp. It's debatable whether they're better than my NOS Voskhod Rockets, so still deliberating.

GIK room treatments are back in, front wall corner bass traps doubled up, panels on front wall centre and behind Zus, reflection points on side walls.

Arya Audio RevOPods under Zus replacing bespoke footers.

Zus now sited on 1" thick Panzerholz plinths, on pre existing Symposium Svelte Shelves, on floor.

Tube dampers removed, VTA adjusted for each lp, and critically I'm boosting Zus subs output.

Now I've too often crowed about improvements wrought, but I do feel I've addressed shortcomings pointed out to me, maybe not wholly, but some of the way, whilst picking up on a serious uptick in enjoyment.

In terms of my current gear, I'm only planning some ongoing mods to current Sablon Elites pwr cords, and maybe some additional GIKs to address eaves related reflections.

I'm also seriously considering subdividing my space in half, to go from 48' total depth to 24', obviously my 18' width and 9' ht stays the same.

This is twofold, to enable my space to load better w bass.

And in preparation for possible move to high efficiency field coil horns using less powerful amps than my 70W Nats.

This latter change, which would be the most radical one since I went SETs/high efficiency full range Zus, is only tentative, and so many things would have to be right for me to swap at this late stage in my audio building career.

But reducing size of room to a still respectable 24x18x9, makes sense whether I keep the Zus to boost their bass performance, or go up a level to very revealing horns and lower power SETs.

Dear Marc,

I never heard what its like in your room but I really wonder Why you are so crazy with this bass thing . Most of the times we cant win it all. I wish I could have such excellent bass so low down the ground not coming up above my waist but that's not going to happen given what I am not willing to compromise. It would be very interesting to me to see you try shooting for the unbeatable on some sound aspects in your system rather than seeing you try to win it all with what available in your hands.

Regarding small horns. I have heard the Cessaro Wagner small two way horns that sound two thumbs up in a room even bigger than mine. It was playing with Thoress amps, pre, phono and a Brinkmann. Just didnt have the scale and the level of energy as my big ones. But frankly that is generally a difference between a big speaker system and a small one. My point is don't "over think." It will lead you all over the places.

Do the WooZaaaa thing while exhaling. Be Zen, stop making out with Bonzo and you will find your own nirvana.

Best regards,
Tang

 

[spiritofmusic]

Alex, I'm due soon to hear c100-103dB horns incl similar sensitivity field coil bass in a room 3x my size using 20W 211s (my 211s are in 101dB Zus, albeit w 300W Class D subs).

If this space is suitably energised w tone colours, fully extended bass, no sign of anaemic stressed soundstage, I'll know that reducing my room size is not the way to go.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Tang, yes I hear you on not getting too wound up re bass. I've probably not been sufficiently organised in getting this dialled in. But I'm on it now, and I'm close to being done on this matter.

I am coming to the conclusion that the combination of triodes on 101dB efficient full range drivers w Class D on more inefficient subs, and those subs being downfiring, all on a springy 35x30 floor, is creating a pretty challenging situation.

Good advice re Ked. I mean, Id love to settle down w him and the Zus, but he keeps telling me he wants to play the field on his travels. He's broken my heart too often.