Zero Distortion: Tango Time
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
That's very nice and neat, Tang.
I did see a show report where the Stellavox tape deck being played was literally on something like a pile of magazines, and the odd publicity photo of a Garrard 301 on a packing crate, and tube amps scattered on the floor.
Not a cable elevator in sight LOL.
Tang, if the argument against someone like me is that my tweaks spend over a decade would today get me a new pr horns spkrs, or a truly upmarket tt, then I'm guilty as charged.
I'll also plead guilty to being overly defensive here.
But surely the criticism is all round. I mean, guys like you and MikeL at the very leading edge of stellar gear, and eye watering spending, surely your gear should sound so comprehensively spectacular, that no desire to augment via Troy, or Stacore, or Scherzinger, or Taiko Tana, or EquiTech, or Entreq, or Stillpoints etc should be wanted or desired.
I'm happy in what my tweaks spend has given me, better acoustics, pure power, lower noise, better transparency, better dynamics and tone.
But, yep, new horns for the same price would have given me more.
I did see a show report where the Stellavox tape deck being played was literally on something like a pile of magazines, and the odd publicity photo of a Garrard 301 on a packing crate, and tube amps scattered on the floor.
Not a cable elevator in sight LOL.
Tang, if the argument against someone like me is that my tweaks spend over a decade would today get me a new pr horns spkrs, or a truly upmarket tt, then I'm guilty as charged.
I'll also plead guilty to being overly defensive here.
But surely the criticism is all round. I mean, guys like you and MikeL at the very leading edge of stellar gear, and eye watering spending, surely your gear should sound so comprehensively spectacular, that no desire to augment via Troy, or Stacore, or Scherzinger, or Taiko Tana, or EquiTech, or Entreq, or Stillpoints etc should be wanted or desired.
I'm happy in what my tweaks spend has given me, better acoustics, pure power, lower noise, better transparency, better dynamics and tone.
But, yep, new horns for the same price would have given me more.
Oh on the contrary, you've continually bragged about your tweaks. See your comments on grounding for one. I only chide you because I've owned your speakers for 7 years and know Sean Casey very well as a designer and friend.
But I tell you what, Marc. If I ever visit your room I'll give you honest feedback on your tweaks.
Well Keith, I'm done w tweaking, and on to 12-18 months saving for the budget for new, non Zu spkrs.
Maybe we're on the same page now.
Maybe we're on the same page now.
I agree with this. We try "tweaks" without understanding them, which is why we call them "tweaks" and don't refer to them according to what they actually do most of the time.
In the case of footers and racks I believe all we are doing is modifying the system's electromechanical feedback devices. An easy example is any vacuum tube. The speaker causes vibrations in the air that are transmitted to the glass envelope of the tube and acts as a transducer to convert some of this mechanical energy into electrical energy. Depending on material properties of the system such as mechanical impedance, energy storage and hysteresis, some frequencies will be attenuated more than others and of course there is some time delay, which may vary too.
I believe if the tweak makes the sound coming from the speaker closer to what the brain expects to hear then we call it better. It is clear and obvious, imo, that most prefer to have some amount of added harmonics and reverb. I've experienced the addition of these things make female vocals sound more clear and intelligible than without them added. I don't think a lot of this behavior is very intuitive because it would seem to defy logic. Yet, it's not anything modern acoustics will teach you, but possibly an expert on psychoacoustics could...
If this is the case it also makes sense to be very careful as we can simply add distortion on top of distortion. What if we have 3 tweaks that actually affect the same thing all stacked together, all creating their own non-linearities? Possibly a big fat mess that is worse than simply sitting the component on the floor.
And then we have this "tweaked out" system and make decisions about cables and maybe even components on top of all that... it's easy to imagine how it's impossible to judge anything anymore. Even if we only change one thing at a time, without understanding what it's actually doing when we do something else we can't understand how they interact. Couple that with the difficulty of remembering acoustic events accurately and human bias and it's pretty obvious how systems can vary so much and that really good systems are either luck or setup by someone with an intuitive understanding of how the system works. Also, it explains how you can setup $1M in gear and get fairly ordinary results, which is common enough...
If this is the case it also makes sense to be very careful as we can simply add distortion on top of distortion. What if we have 3 tweaks that actually affect the same thing all stacked together, all creating their own non-linearities? Possibly a big fat mess that is worse than simply sitting the component on the floor.
And then we have this "tweaked out" system and make decisions about cables and maybe even components on top of all that... it's easy to imagine how it's impossible to judge anything anymore. Even if we only change one thing at a time, without understanding what it's actually doing when we do something else we can't understand how they interact.
Well said, Dave. I made this error myself re: TT isolation and haven't looked back.
I am reminded of Rockitman's TechDAS AF1 which has its own air isolation but also sits on a custom HRS platform. This combination was then placed on top of an active isolation table which did not improve the sound, as I recall.
I agree with this. We try "tweaks" without understanding them, which is why we call them "tweaks" and don't refer to them according to what they actually do most of the time.
In the case of footers and racks I believe all we are doing is modifying the system's electromechanical feedback devices. An easy example is any vacuum tube. The speaker causes vibrations in the air that are transmitted to the glass envelope of the tube and acts as a transducer to convert some of this mechanical energy into electrical energy. Depending on material properties of the system such as mechanical impedance, energy storage and hysteresis, some frequencies will be attenuated more than others and of course there is some time delay, which may vary too.
I believe if the tweak makes the sound coming from the speaker closer to what the brain expects to hear then we call it better. It is clear and obvious, imo, that most prefer to have some amount of added harmonics and reverb. I've experienced the addition of these things make female vocals sound more clear and intelligible than without them added. I don't think a lot of this behavior is very intuitive because it would seem to defy logic. Yet, it's not anything modern acoustics will teach you, but possibly an expert on psychoacoustics could...
If this is the case it also makes sense to be very careful as we can simply add distortion on top of distortion. What if we have 3 tweaks that actually affect the same thing all stacked together, all creating their own non-linearities? Possibly a big fat mess that is worse than simply sitting the component on the floor.
And then we have this "tweaked out" system and make decisions about cables and maybe even components on top of all that... it's easy to imagine how it's impossible to judge anything anymore. Even if we only change one thing at a time, without understanding what it's actually doing when we do something else we can't understand how they interact. Couple that with the difficulty of remembering acoustic events accurately and human bias and it's pretty obvious how systems can vary so much and that really good systems are either luck or setup by someone with an intuitive understanding of how the system works. Also, it explains how you can setup $1M in gear and get fairly ordinary results, which is common enough...
Yes, am thinking many of us have heard some horrendously expensive systems sound fairly ordinary though only rarely ever horrendous. The best components do tend to buy you a minimum standard of good but then not always guaranteed best outcome. The great systems appear to come out of a deep understanding of how we optimise and modify (or how we not optimise and modify) and then integrate and work with what we have and want or what we think we have and want... finances, room, desires, preference, expectation, experience... and a developed level of appreciation.
Tang’s experience with a very specific and very fabulous type of very high end system and the clear intense drive and capacity to improve is a great teacher for all wanting to question the nature of what we can eventually get from always wanting to get something better. I’m guessing that’s not the main reason he is doing it for though.
Though it may also seem that it is as much about understanding balances and limits as it is about also understanding potentials and meaning and that creating change isn’t always therefore the best outcome. As a modern civilisation we are caught up in doing when sometimes we are simply better off not doing.
Tang thanks also for sharing and asking all the good questions and being open and honest about what you’ve found btw... your journey since getting the AS and encountering David seems to have been a fabulously fast and furiously fun one. No expense spared and no prisoners taken, not even Ked... well, yet.
Nice comments, Tao. I agree that it has been very enjoyable and informative to read what Tang has been sharing about his system. How it has evolved and what he has learned is wonderful.
I also find it fascinating to see how Tang's system and MikeL's have both evolved, and in many ways, how they represent two very different approaches from two extremely passionate audiophiles. As members, we are lucky that they are sharing their systems with us.
I also find it fascinating to see how Tang's system and MikeL's have both evolved, and in many ways, how they represent two very different approaches from two extremely passionate audiophiles. As members, we are lucky that they are sharing their systems with us.
I read that. I guess it is an integral part of the design. Would you recommend placing it all on top of Mooks?
Detrich made me a special XXL Axiom for the EMT 927 original mounting hole. The pivot to spindle distance was a bit off so the cart setup was not at optimal. Only a few days ago he sent me the new mounting base with more flexibility for adjustment. Now I have the perfect alignment to his Smartractor.
Noone got it right the first time with custom arm. Mr.T went with the Thales camp using a custom Statement arm and it also didnt work properly the first time. If the tt werent too heavy and I had a visa, I might carry mine over to his place for the shoot out to see whose 927 setup sounds better. We both use the GFS on 927.
@Bonzo. I just have to leave you wonder how much better it sounds now.
Tang
Noone got it right the first time with custom arm. Mr.T went with the Thales camp using a custom Statement arm and it also didnt work properly the first time. If the tt werent too heavy and I had a visa, I might carry mine over to his place for the shoot out to see whose 927 setup sounds better. We both use the GFS on 927.
@Bonzo. I just have to leave you wonder how much better it sounds now
.Tang
Last edited:
Hello Sujay,
No, that is only for my Axioms. I used the DBSystem for my Master Sig. which is on the SME.
Tang
Detrich made me a special XXL Axiom for the EMT 927 original mounting hole. The pivot to spindle distance was a bit off so the cart setup was not at optimal. Only a few days ago he sent me the new mounting base with more flexibility for adjustment. Now I have the perfect alignment to his Smartractor.
Noone got it right the first time with custom arm. Mr.T went with the Thales camp using a custom Statement arm and it also didnt work properly the first time. If the tt werent too heavy and I had a visa, I might carry mine over to his place for the shoot out to see whose 927 setup sounds better. We both use the GFS on 927.
@Bonzo. I just have to leave you wonder how much better it sounds now
Tang
View attachment 46510
Great picture. Can I ask what camera or ccd microscope you are using to take it?
Wow! Is it an audiophile model?
Is charged through the Siltech power generator
I have tried a few phono stages in my system, CH P1, Ayon Spheris and its new prototype top version, Allnic 5000, Soulution 755, etc. My personal conclusion is the EMT JPA66 MkII is my choice of phono stage. Sonicly what I like most from the EMT is its transparency and tone. Some people say ss phono has top transparency. I say this EMT gives me the clearest sound from all phono I tried in my system. Its tone doesnt emphasize any particular region. The high is exceptional. There is no accentuation in the mids. Their low is also excellent but I have found some other phonos could do deeper more substantial low. The mids are not as beautiful as Allnic. Absolutely no obscurity (is there such word?) in details. The sound stage is not really my priority. However, it gives me all the depth and width dictated by different recordings. I found both CH and Soulution gave more expansive sound stage. It has the "drive", pop" and "liveness" of the best tube phonos. I had an itch to try both Lamm LP1 and Thomas Mayer phono. Both ddk and the General gave me a generous offer to send them for me to try. The LP1 would give a good synergy to the system if I move to Lamm. Bill said the General had both TM and EMT. Their opinion is the TM sounds even better. I never took the offer. Instead I ordered another EMT and have them customize inputs specially for me. Once you live with the EMT you will find that it is so flexible with various adjustments. With these adjustments it could practically match to any change you may have up and down the line. Some records you could do better with some curve adjustments. Some cartridges the output of left and right are not quite balance you could also adjust them at the phono. Gain matching with both cartridges and amps is zero problem since it is adjustable for each input plus there is a master volume adjustment to match with the preamp. It has four inputs. Each input has continous loading adjustment. Power cord makes only small differences in sound with this phono so you dont need to spend more. Some phonos I found totally unmatch to my system no matter how excellent they work in other people systems. Comparability and flexibility is something I put a lot of priority on because I never stand still. The EMT has it all. Highly recommended.
Kind regards,
Tang
Kind regards,Tang
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |