I don’t have a pair of those but I know a pair for sale if you are interested.
Zero Distortion: Visit to Rhapsody Dallas
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
I think the sound of this violin is consonant with my idea of how a violin sounds at Walt Disney Concert Hall.
Ron, I have close to 40 working systems. I get the simple point, that they all sound different but I also discern that some are more musical, articulate, resolving, powerful, extended, enchanting, immersive than others. Get the picture yet?
Last edited:
Can you please provide the names of the recordings you recorded? I am curious to try them at home if possible
And you don’t think at least some of it is due to the recordings? Also, aren’t you “remastering” yours? I would propose that until you play those exact recordings back on your systems without manipulation, then the experiment is inconclusive.
The recording on my WAAR system with the remastering process is:
Shostakovich 8th Symphony -- Third Movement - The Battle for Stalingrad
The recording on one of my DHT/SET systems:
The theme for Succession
Brad this was not about comparing recordings, mine versus Bonzo’s. This was about the sound of the systems. The Remastering process is part of the sound of my WAAR system. My DHT/SET has no remastering process implemented. I assume that you telling me to not use HQPLAYER would be the equivalent to me telling Rhapsody not to use the Kondo Gaia or the Vyger Atlantis. The source is part of the sound of the system. The only thing that needs to be evaluated is the resultant sound. I don’t put restrictions on anyone and I don’t want anyone to restrict me on what I can do or should not do. What I have presented is the sound of my systems as they sound today. Nothing more, nothing less. What Bonzo intended to present with the videos is the sound of the different Diesis/Kondo system configurations.
in other words, no one has any recording/media reference to judge his system by, the WAAR tweaked recording reference is unique to Carlos. so we simply judge video to video to judge system to system. preferences. what might the differences tell us? open for debate. not judging.
without a reference media as a basis, personally i don't think much can be determined. and if you are not into videos like me, then even less.
So for a comparison to be valid we must use the same cables, source, speakers, amplifiers. You are missing the point, what is presented is the resultant sound. The Remastering process is used to tailor the overall system presentation. What is presented in the video is the sound of my system.
Isn’t your equipment and system configuration unique to you?
By conceding that my Remastering process is that most powerful way to influence the resulting sound of a system you have proven my point, that there is a Smarter Way to approach system building. Thanks
Last edited:
Kedar, I am interested in learning more about what you thought of the Magico M9, because I was a long time Magico owner. I reread your visit report and came up with these two comments:
"After listening to some Beethoven and Shostakovich, and marveling at how much better the M9 was to the S7 Mk2, M3, S5 Mk1 and 2, and a few other Magicos heard over the years, particularly in the midrange, cleanliness, transparency, and tone, I can only say that those who can afford to upgrade from their current Magicos and Wilsons to the M9, should."
"The M9 to my ears, as reported by at least two other people on WBF, sounded better than the Wilson XVX that I have heard. It is more integrated and coherent and seems to disappear more."
Could you say a bit more about how some of your recordings actually sounded, and relate that to the sound you hear so often live in concert halls? I know well the Magico midrange, and the clean, transparent sound. I also know from my two speakers that the Magico speakers are coherent and when set up well tend to disappear. What I would like to know is how the M9 and rest of the system made violins and pianos sound. Did you have an emotional connection to the music, how was the flow, dynamics, scale. These are monumental efforts along with those monster amps. I am curious to know more about what you heard.
"After listening to some Beethoven and Shostakovich, and marveling at how much better the M9 was to the S7 Mk2, M3, S5 Mk1 and 2, and a few other Magicos heard over the years, particularly in the midrange, cleanliness, transparency, and tone, I can only say that those who can afford to upgrade from their current Magicos and Wilsons to the M9, should."
"The M9 to my ears, as reported by at least two other people on WBF, sounded better than the Wilson XVX that I have heard. It is more integrated and coherent and seems to disappear more."
Could you say a bit more about how some of your recordings actually sounded, and relate that to the sound you hear so often live in concert halls? I know well the Magico midrange, and the clean, transparent sound. I also know from my two speakers that the Magico speakers are coherent and when set up well tend to disappear. What I would like to know is how the M9 and rest of the system made violins and pianos sound. Did you have an emotional connection to the music, how was the flow, dynamics, scale. These are monumental efforts along with those monster amps. I am curious to know more about what you heard.
Oh but Carlos it is ALWAYS to some degree about the recordings…Inferior recordings can make a system sound far worse than it is. That being said, after going back and relistening to them there is a sameness of tone and perspective across the recordings of that system, that would unlikely be the same normally for all three different recordings.
i want to relisten to your recordings because on first listen I was not convinced by the DHT SET recording…it sounded strained in parts. The other one with the big Wisdom speakers was quite good.
Finally, a bit more info on the recordings please, which label, which conductor, which year, which orchestra as there are at least dozens of recordings of the Shostakovich and many are quite poor.
Brad, the Remastering process is not applied to the recording but to the system. It may seem like semantics but if you were to apply those remastering setting to recording alone it would sound awful. Those changes were done to address the overall system presentation. Lucky for you, I have a video of the WAAR system with and without the Remastering process:
No but you should use the same music file or LP or tape etc. Everything else you mentioned is part of the system that you are trying to compare to another system.
Your manipulation of the file should be demonstrated as “on” and “off” to illustrate the advantage AND to provide an unadulterated version to compare with other systems that are playing unmanipulated files.
What you have done is compared apples to bowling balls…and then claimed your bowling ball does a better job of getting a strike than his Apple.
Now, you may be right about the Diesis/Kondo (although I have heard this live and also been impressed with the tonal compkexity, dynamic contrast and sheer realism that came through with certain recordings) but your videos don’t actually prove anything about the other system…they only prove they sound good with different music. To prove that your way is superior there has to be a common ground for comparison.
Brad, the details are in this thread:
There is a smarter way
Respond back on that thread if you have any questions.
Ked, just a comment to say I enjoyed your DFW Rhapsody report. Most noticeable to me is that your writing skills have developed in parallel with your ability to describe what you heard in a meaningful way. Nice work!
Ron, this is quite a powerful statement about a system video recorded by an iPhone. The result is also a digitized version of the analog LP. You stated earlier something like that you would not be able to ascertain much from hearing an LP vs. digital file over a YouTube video (if I understand your earlier comment). That this YouTube system video sounds "consonant" with your idea of how an actual violin sounds, and I think you said over your iPhone speakers, that is quite something.
I presume Kedar feels the videos are representative of what he heard from the actual listening seat.
They sound the same to me! What is the difference?
Perhaps with a better recording device it would be more obvious? Here the bass overpowers everything else.
As mentioned in my report the videos don't grab the bass and the density of the stage. behind.
That said, I think with videos if it sounds very good, it should be auditioned. If it sounded bad, that was another thing. Most seem to think these videos were good, it is quite obvious in person they will get much more insight. No one should click buy after listening to a video unless it is pocket change for them. But they should expect to enjoy even more in person. And I have my words accompanying what I heard, but I can understand some people will say off with the bottom of the report just leave the words in.
Ron picked up a brilliant passage of play to say wow that sounds real. To my point on the other thread, if you play good passages you can know if it is not real pretty quickly. When someone tells me they need one month to evaluate (set up time not taking into account, in which case even a few months is too less), I wonder what they are listening for. With Britney Spears and Spice Girls you can listen as long as you like and evaluate forever. If with Oistrakh's, Szeryng's, Kogan's or Heifetz's bow one cannot make out how it sounds at least in the violin range, they should just buy sorting on the sticker price. If it sounds real similarly for other instruments vocals orchestra in a few LPs, beyond that is stress testing.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Sticky
