AudioNervosa
Systemic Development => Bipolar System Disorders => Topic started by: Nick B on September 28, 2022, 08:00:37 PM
-
I’ve been in this hobby for 35+ years and it’s only the last few years where I’ve been able to get very good sound and “dial in” my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I’ve adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I’ve learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don’t want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don’t. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company’s power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there’s a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I’m wondering what methodologies and practices you’ve employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.
-
One thing you may find out soon is that a different speaker and especially a different room will have you scratching your head trying to figure out what went wrong. The room at the house in SC has had me doing that for over two years. If/when the room addition is done there I will have to start the process all over again.
-
I’ve been in this hobby for 35+ years and it’s only the last few years where I’ve been able to get very good sound and “dial in” my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I’ve adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I’ve learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don’t want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don’t. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company’s power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there’s a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I’m wondering what methodologies and practices you’ve employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.
I don't even start "voicing" a system until I get the room in control and the physical location of the speakers more or less finalized. I do this knowing that "that final location" will undoubtedly change when all of the cabling and finding the final listening position is done.
Cabling is a cut and try procedure that can take a long time and is individual to the gear it used with. I have never seen a cable company that can meet the needs of every piece of gear. No one-size fits all. I have a design SQ target etched in my brain and whatever cable (or piece of gear for that matter) gets me closer is a keeper until and unless something else sounds better. When I get something new, I try it on EVERY piece of gear to find the best application.
All of this takes time and lots of $$$. That is, unless you do the cable lend/loan thing. There is The Cable Company and others and almost every cable manufacturer offers a full refund 30 day audition time.
Ultimate SQ is a process and most of that process is cut and try.
-
I’ve been in this hobby for 35+ years and it’s only the last few years where I’ve been able to get very good sound and “dial in” my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I’ve adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I’ve learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don’t want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don’t. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company’s power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there’s a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I’m wondering what methodologies and practices you’ve employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.
Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.
I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.
1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.
2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.
To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.
3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.
4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.
5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.
What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.
A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.
B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.
There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.
I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.
That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.
With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.
Cheers
steve
-
One thing you may find out soon is that a different speaker and especially a different room will have you scratching your head trying to figure out what went wrong. The room at the house in SC has had me doing that for over two years. If/when the room addition is done there I will have to start the process all over again.
I thought I was moving, but that didn’t happen….it might though at some point. I’m hoping the speakers don’t get lost on the way over. It’s a big ocean. One of these days I’m going to have to dive in to the world of room acoustics 😅
-
Don't think they'll get lost just won't get in a hurry based on what I was told my another small importer of an Italian brand of speakers.
-
I’ve been in this hobby for 35+ years and it’s only the last few years where I’ve been able to get very good sound and “dial in” my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I’ve adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I’ve learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don’t want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don’t. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company’s power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there’s a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I’m wondering what methodologies and practices you’ve employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.
Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.
I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.
1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.
2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.
To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.
3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.
4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.
5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.
What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.
A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.
B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.
There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.
I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.
That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.
With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.
Cheers
steve
Hi Steve. Yes, it’s fun, but would even be more fun if I wouldn’t spend as much 💰 💰 on this hobby! Thanks for the detailed response and from your perspective as a designer. As to your comments on components, mine are overall quite synergistic. I do have speakers coming that have the AMT tweeters. I’ve been quite happy withe the Fritz Carreras, but that beryllium tweeter can be harsh at times. Beyond that, I’m curious about another amp although the AVA SET 120 is a wonderful amp for the money.
-
I’ve been in this hobby for 35+ years and it’s only the last few years where I’ve been able to get very good sound and “dial in” my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I’ve adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I’ve learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don’t want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don’t. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company’s power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there’s a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I’m wondering what methodologies and practices you’ve employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.
I don't even start "voicing" a system until I get the room in control and the physical location of the speakers more or less finalized. I do this knowing that "that final location" will undoubtedly change when all of the cabling and finding the final listening position is done.
Cabling is a cut and try procedure that can take a long time and is individual to the gear it used with. I have never seen a cable company that can meet the needs of every piece of gear. No one-size fits all. I have a design SQ target etched in my brain and whatever cable (or piece of gear for that matter) gets me closer is a keeper until and unless something else sounds better. When I get something new, I try it on EVERY piece of gear to find the best application.
All of this takes time and lots of $$$. That is, unless you do the cable lend/loan thing. There is The Cable Company and others and almost every cable manufacturer offers a full refund 30 day audition time.
Ultimate SQ is a process and most of that process is cut and try.
Well, I’ve never tackled room acoustics, but did stumble onto a better position for the speakers recently. That was because I had to move them for house pics when I listed the house for sale. I’d hate to travel down the road of different cables as I really like the Wywires and it cost me a bit to get the full loom. I don’t think I’ve tried borrowing cables from the Cable Company. I rely on comments from select members here and then on AC and lastly on reviews. I have returned equipment on rare occasions that I haven’t liked.
-
I’ve been in this hobby for 35+ years and it’s only the last few years where I’ve been able to get very good sound and “dial in” my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I’ve adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I’ve learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don’t want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don’t. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company’s power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there’s a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I’m wondering what methodologies and practices you’ve employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.
Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.
I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.
1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.
2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.
To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.
3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.
4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.
5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.
What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.
A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.
B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.
There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.
I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.
That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.
With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.
Cheers
steve
Hi Steve. Yes, it’s fun, but would even be more fun if I wouldn’t spend as much 💰 💰 on this hobby! Thanks for the detailed response and from your perspective as a designer. As to your comments on components, mine are overall quite synergistic. I do have speakers coming that have the AMT tweeters. I’ve been quite happy withe the Fritz Carreras, but that beryllium tweeter can be harsh at times. Beyond that, I’m curious about another amp although the AVA SET 120 is a wonderful amp for the money.
I also did not care for beryllium. Wow, now your talking with the AMTs. Any chance down the road you might
replace the beryllium with an AMT? That would be an interesting experiment.
cheers
steve
-
I’ve been in this hobby for 35+ years and it’s only the last few years where I’ve been able to get very good sound and “dial in” my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I’ve adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I’ve learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don’t want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don’t. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company’s power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there’s a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I’m wondering what methodologies and practices you’ve employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.
Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.
I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.
1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.
2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.
To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.
3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.
4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.
5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.
What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.
A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.
B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.
There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.
I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.
That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.
With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.
Cheers
steve
Hi Steve. Yes, it’s fun, but would even be more fun if I wouldn’t spend as much 💰 💰 on this hobby! Thanks for the detailed response and from your perspective as a designer. As to your comments on components, mine are overall quite synergistic. I do have speakers coming that have the AMT tweeters. I’ve been quite happy withe the Fritz Carreras, but that beryllium tweeter can be harsh at times. Beyond that, I’m curious about another amp although the AVA SET 120 is a wonderful amp for the money.
I also did not care for beryllium. Wow, now your talking with the AMTs. Any chance down the road you might
replace the beryllium with an AMT? That would be an interesting experiment.
cheers
steve
It’s a long story, but in a month (hopefully) I’ll have replacement drivers for one AMT speaker that was damaged and a different pair also with AMT tweeters. Whichever pair sounds best, I’ll keep and sell the other two. I expect the beryllium tweeter won’t make the cut, but the Carreras are terrific speakers and Fritz is a great guy.
-
"It’s a long story, but in a month (hopefully) I’ll have replacement drivers for one AMT speaker that was damaged and a different pair also with AMT tweeters. Whichever pair sounds best, I’ll keep and sell the other two. I expect the beryllium tweeter won’t make the cut, but the Carreras are terrific speakers and Fritz is a great guy."
Unclutter the string a little.
I don't doubt the Fritz speakers are good. Heard very good things about him and his speakers. I concur and
am anticipating how the "shootout" ends between the AMTs, and vs berylliums.
Inquiring minds want to know your results. :D
cheers
steve
-
Based on my experience with two of the speakers Nick is dealing with the AMT's will win out. At least they did for me. Haven't personally heard the third pair but the dealer/former US distributor who most would be familiar with says the newer larger AMT in the third speaker makes it the winner. Nick will get the chance to find out.
-
Well, this has been going on for a while trying to get the 7” replacement drivers. They’re hopefully on a steamship somewhere in the Atlantic. I’m going to have to find someone in so. Utah or Vegas to do the soldering. I don’t want to mess with it and want excellent quality solder used. I’ve read very good things about the AMT tweeters. I might have been moving too and that would’ve complicated things a bit more.
I will advise how it all turns out.
-
Based on my experience with two of the speakers Nick is dealing with the AMT's will win out. At least they did for me. Haven't personally heard the third pair but the dealer/former US distributor who most would be familiar with says the newer larger AMT in the third speaker makes it the winner. Nick will get the chance to find out.
I do love the sound of an AMT tweeter- the fullness/sweetness of a soft dome with just more of everything- I guess those folds do something special- they certainly play loudly without strain. Yes- I’m guilty of wanting a speaker that crosses the 100 db barrier without a hint of strain.
My Legacy Focus SE AMT’s had the best high end in my opinion, but the bass overwhelmed my room. In the right room, I’d get them again in a heartbeat.
-
Based on my experience with two of the speakers Nick is dealing with the AMT's will win out. At least they did for me. Haven't personally heard the third pair but the dealer/former US distributor who most would be familiar with says the newer larger AMT in the third speaker makes it the winner. Nick will get the chance to find out.
I do love the sound of an AMT tweeter- the fullness/sweetness of a soft dome with just more of everything- I guess those folds do something special- they certainly play loudly without strain. Yes- I’m guilty of wanting a speaker that crosses the 100 db barrier without a hint of strain.
My Legacy Focus SE AMT’s had the best high end in my opinion, but the bass overwhelmed my room. In the right room, I’d get them again in a heartbeat.
I guess I’m in for quite a treat with the AMT. I do crank it up, so playing without strain yet revealing detail and having the tonal character you describe seems just perfect. As to Legacy, I sure respect Bill Duddleston and his designs. Years ago I tried one of his speakers end it didn’t work out. Had to send it back and used FedEx who promptly trashed one of the speakers. FedEx ended up paying and Bill was able to refinish the beautiful wood. He was justifiably a bit ticked off, but I was able to handle it and get it paid quickly.
-
Hey Doug,
Sorry for my late response. I just saw this today and I normally just tap on the “show posts since last visit” tab, and not the one below it. Those are some very nice speakers that you have shown. My speakers are either on a boat somewhere in the Atlantic or sitting in customs or who knows where else. The distributor hasn’t been very responsive and I need to follow up on this. I’ve been so busy with moving and I have yet to spend one evening in my home as I’m still waiting for painting and flooring to be completed. My new place has a smaller listening area and it will be a challenge to make things sound good. But that’s a project that is at least 2 to 3 weeks into the future.
As to you not being notified of posts, there should be a notify tab at the bottom, and I would think that would fix the problem.
Nick
-
If you're interested in the Hornings contact JB trio he has them
-
Too bad this, like so many other forums, include posts that are not on point as far as the thread topic.
Voicing philosophy involves using my ears as the dominant factor, acoustical engineers (one at least) performing measurement data as the second criteria, friends of mine that include musicians as a third criteria, and all others which include audio club members, audio aficionados, and anyone else who purports to be knowledgeable in sound reproduction.
This is how I know the finished product of my 30k all in system easily, let me repeat that word easily, compares with ANY other system costing more than 100k, when one takes into consideration the overall presentation which includes, the second most dominant factor, the room itself. It's unclear to me whether people understand what the primary dominant factor is or what the third and thereafter dominant factor is but that's a topic for a different thread.
Best
Hal
-
Too bad this, like so many other forums, include posts that are not on point as far as the thread topic.
Voicing philosophy involves using my ears as the dominant factor, acoustical engineers (one at least) performing measurement data as the second criteria, friends of mine that include musicians as a third criteria, and all others which include audio club members, audio aficionados, and anyone else who purports to be knowledgeable in sound reproduction.
This is how I know the finished product of my 30k all in system easily, let me repeat that word easily, compares with ANY other system costing more than 100k, when one takes into consideration the overall presentation which includes, the second most dominant factor, the room itself. It's unclear to me whether people understand what the primary dominant factor is or what the third and thereafter dominant factor is but that's a topic for a different thread.
Best
Hal
You make a valid point in regards to some posts not being on topic here. However, this is quite a small forum and stifling discussion based on strict rules would further limit discussions imho. As to your voicing criteria, I appreciate what you are saying and it makes sense. Sadly, I don’t have access to musicians, audio club members, trusted ears etc who would come to my home and give me constructive input. Nonetheless, I’m getting excellent results and am expecting even better results soon. My new home is limiting as to the new listening location, but I’ll soon be consulting some folks here for opinions.
-
@Nick B
Your response is rather "heartfelt" and "touching" to me. For that I sincerely thank you.
Assuming that you have the capability to play digital audio files, I wish to gift to you a plethora of music. Please pick a few shows of your choosing from my website, and I will gladly make them available to you (and others who monitor the thread) for download.
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html
Happy holidays.
Best.
Hal
-
@Nick B
Your response is rather "heartfelt" and "touching" to me. For that I sincerely thank you.
Assuming that you have the capability to play digital audio files, I wish to gift to you a plethora of music. Please pick a few shows of your choosing from my website, and I will gladly make them available to you (and others who monitor the thread) for download.
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html
Happy holidays.
Best.
Hal
Hi Hal,
I’ll take you up on your generous offer and will send a PM. I should be able to transfer to my iMac desktop and play thru Roon. As my new place is being painted etc, it will be a few weeks til my system is operational.
Nick
-
@Nick B
I sent you a PM with the download link. Kindly confirm receipt. Please download within a few days or so as the files expire after about 7 days.
Enjoy!
Best.
Hal
-
@Nick B
Your response is rather "heartfelt" and "touching" to me. For that I sincerely thank you.
Assuming that you have the capability to play digital audio files, I wish to gift to you a plethora of music. Please pick a few shows of your choosing from my website, and I will gladly make them available to you (and others who monitor the thread) for download.
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html
Happy holidays.
Best.
Hal
WOW!
Most impressive list :thumb:
-
I use the finest measuring instrument on earth
my ears, they never lie, they never present data that should be meaningful but isn't
I believe the ultimate test is musical/emotional engagement
does the system draw you into it, do you find what you are hearing interesting and exciting?
In the end that is all that matters
For me tubes have been a big influence in bringing me into that arena, and not because people erroneously think tubes add a warm rich tone. I have heard some bad tube amps, but because they add air and dimensionality to music. If this because of a flaw in the tech then I like that flaw. And may not be a flaw at all...but a sales pitch to sell another cheaper tech..
We all must compromise somewhere, tubes lack the grip on bass that SS does, but I'm OK with that.,but tube bass can be so realistic and tuneful....
I have also found vinyl for me is where it is at, digital is nice but can't come close to good vinyl and I 'm not trying to start of vinyl vs digital war, nor a tube vs SS war. I only use my ears and what makes me happy is what matters to me, it is my philosophy right?
Audio ergo Sum...
-
@Nick B
Your response is rather "heartfelt" and "touching" to me. For that I sincerely thank you.
Assuming that you have the capability to play digital audio files, I wish to gift to you a plethora of music. Please pick a few shows of your choosing from my website, and I will gladly make them available to you (and others who monitor the thread) for download.
http://halr.x10.mx/other.html
Happy holidays.
Best.
Hal
WOW!
Most impressive list :thumb:
Thank you, P.I.
I'll add that I have right of passage, because I've actually listened to every second of music on my list. I did not simply collect it and catalog it.
I have a queue of music, in my backlog which is more than one year old (approximately 600 shows of various artists, some new to me), of music that I have but I've not yet listen to and is not yet on my list. It gets added once I've listened to it.
In addition, I don't know if you've checked my Grateful Dead list. In that particular instance, believe it or not, which in itself is a Grateful Dead term/song, and I'll understand if you don't believe it, but I can easily prove it, I have every source of every show. (Not the case with music other than Grateful Dead, as in those instances I have only one source). In the case of GD, this means matrix, soundboard, audience , FM, prefm, satellite, and all variants of those. This is the result of more than 25 years of BitTorrent peer-to-peer trading. (And tape, cd trading prior)
It's an obsession, but it's pleasin' (lazy lightnin, Bob weir)
Best.
Hal
-
room setup is absolutely key, but that all depends on the type of speakers you have and the space available to you (and WAF, of course). So "Live End - Dead End" means one thing for box speakers and exactly the opposite for dipoles and panels.
Second, it's worth getting an inexpensive laser measuring device to get those speakers precicely positioned in relation to your listening position. Distance from the side walls, distance from your ears, distance from each other ... yeah all that matters.
Third, don't forget room treatments. But too much of them can deaden your sound, and nothing will likely make thigs sound too live and reflective.
Fourth, play lots of different music. Bass thumps tell you one thing and tinklly things tell another, in addition to the human voice and piano.
Fifth, subwoofers are a whole nother subject.
So how do I voice my system? Yeah all of that above before I even think about tube rolling or cable swapping.
-
room setup is absolutely key, but that all depends on the type of speakers you have and the space available to you (and WAF, of course). So "Live End - Dead End" means one thing for box speakers and exactly the opposite for dipoles and panels.
Second, it's worth getting an inexpensive laser measuring device to get those speakers precicely positioned in relation to your listening position. Distance from the side walls, distance from your ears, distance from each other ... yeah all that matters.
Third, don't forget room treatments. But too much of them can deaden your sound, and nothing will likely make thigs sound too live and reflective.
Fourth, play lots of different music. Bass thumps tell you one thing and tinklly things tell another, in addition to the human voice and piano.
Fifth, subwoofers are a whole nother subject.
So how do I voice my system? Yeah all of that above before I even think about tube rolling or cable swapping.
Correct!
Pecking order is as follows:
1 - your own personal hearing acuity and preference. ... a lot of subjectivity and objectivity involved.
2. - the recording itself. what it is you're trying to reproduce after it's been performed live or in the studio, and the quality of the recording.
3 - the environment. this includes the room, dimensions of room, treatments such as absorption and diffusion, and environmental factors such as temperature , humidity ,EMI, RFI etc. Also includes quiescent noise floor of surrounding environment.
4 - speakers. This includes everything in the way of transducers. Their type, placement and the number thereof. Crossovers vs no crossovers. Dipole, box, open back, planar, etc. Also extremely important is your proximity to the transducers when listening. This includes on/off axis listening, near field or far field.
5 - the topology of ones system. This includes whether it's analog , digital , solid state, tube or a combination hybrid of those . Also can include objective measurements data.
6 - other variables such as acts of God, cables, electrical supply, etc. Balanced power has a profound impact on the sound of ones system. Not better or worse, but immediately and readily/noticably different.
Best.
Hal
-
Interesting posts indeed, but some very crucial information needs to be brought to our attention.
Electronics seems to be left out of the "equation", which is quite regrettable. This post will not be
exhaustive but will cover an example or two. Of course it involves listening.
1. One single part value anywhere in an electronic component, or crossover, can bloat the bass,
giving the appearance of lacking bass control. Improper internal terminations and
poor materials in coupling capacitors are prime examples, as the affect all octaves in audio, not
less than 1/3 octave.
2. Improper design of the power supplies/filtering stages in components can either fatten or reduce
the bass. Types of filter capacitors, such as electrolytic negatively affect bass response. This is just
basic electronics engineering.
a. Because of poor power supply design, tube designs often tend to bloat bass.
b. Solid state tends to fatten the bass due to large electrolytic capacitor necessity,
with high DA and ESR.
c. Fortunately, global negative feedback (GNF) in both a. and b. tends to lower the output impedance
of an amplifier, increasing the damping factor, but varies with frequency. The result is not really flat
response. Also, again, this involves more than 1 octave, let alone 1/3 octave.
d. However, with proper design, amps may obtain very tight bass without GNF. But then types of
distortion increase.
3. The "matching", itself, between amplifier output to speaker, including speaker wire will
affect damping, thus under damped or over damped bass response. This involves more than
one octave, let alone greater than 1/3 octave.
4. DC coupling between electronic stages almost always creates a boosted bass response, not flat,
accurate response as one would think. This situation also covers many octaves.
(There are certain situations where dc coupling actually causes reduced bass response.)
5. There are many other forms of distortion besides harmonic (and IMD).
The definition being any alteration of the musical information.
6. Although speakers/rooms cause deviations in response, they seldom exceed 1/3 octave bandwidth,
except in the bass region. For example in contrast, 20 to 40hz is an octave vs 5khz to 10khz as
an octave. Frequency response deviation is one form of distortion. Can one imagine if we perceived
every single dip and peak, how awful the playback would sound.
The wider the bandwidth deviation, the higher number of harmonics from a voice/instrument are
negatively affected. That is why although the specs look so good for an electronic component, the
effect so great. A distortions in an electronic component almost always affects the entire audio
spectrum, approximately 10 octaves, and even beyond.
For instance, +/- 0,1db from 20 - 20khz, a deviation in the approximate -54db range, means
virtually nothing as 1 part in a million perception is some -114db to -120db range. Obviously
listening is involved.
The major point is that electronic components should be right near the top of the list. The electronics
is worse than one thinks. Although they don't produce a huge splash in an area or two, as
speakers/rooms do, an electronic component's other negatives effects often occur across the entire
audio spectrum.
A bad component(s) in a good room still sounds bad. Just one bad electronic passive part can destroy
an otherwise good sound. That is why I do a prelim in the room acoustics, check electronics for accuracy
in absolute terms (or visa versa), then work with speakers and source(s), and then deal with room
acoustics again. It is back and forth with source/speakers.
If one does not get the electronics right, then the speaker/room placement/treatment(s) won't be proper
either. Of course it is easier for a designer as they can adjust parts/components etc that others often cannot.
cheers
pos
-
My first concern since sometime in the 1980s, has been the preservation of the dynamic life of the music. This seems to be the first casualty of the reproduction process. The second appears to be tonal errors.
Many things appear to be implicated in the loss dynamic life. Gain stage design in amplifiers, pre and power amps as well as the total number of passive parts in a loudspeaker crossover are a couple of factors.
Once I had a handle on this aspect of music reproduction, transparency and preservation
of as much of the detail captured in the original recording as possible became an additional part of the
picture.
One might describe this approach to system optimization as voicing
but am not sure that I would. Neutrality and faithfulness to the source in all aspects
of reproduction are my goals. How successful I been in this endeavor is really a
personal value judgment and how someone else might experience the results of my
approach maybe quite variable.
At this point in time I can say that I have reached a stopping point.
Scotty
Sent from an Android phone with thumbs. Why can't Scotty spell? geez I wonder?
-
My first concern since sometime in the 1980s, has been the preservation of the dynamic life of the music. This seems to be the first casualty of the reproduction process. The second appears to be tonal errors.
Many things appear to be implicated in the loss dynamic life. Gain stage design in amplifiers, pre and power amps as well as the total number of passive parts in a loudspeaker crossover are a couple of factors.
Once I had a handle on this aspect of music reproduction, transparency and preservation
of as much of the detail captured in the original recording as possible became an additional part of the
picture.
One might describe this approach to system optimization as voicing
but am not sure that I would. Neutrality and faithfulness to the source in all aspects
of reproduction are my goals. How successful I been in this endeavor is really a
personal value judgment and how someone else might experience the results of my
approach maybe quite variable.
At this point in time I can say that I have reached a stopping point.
Scoty
+1. I like the way you think Scoty.
cheers
steve
-
Beyond one's own hearing acuity, I think a valid argument can be made that no microphone is "exactly perfect". So, it follows that the expectation level of playing back sound(s) that have been recorded can also never be exactly perfect, no matter the room, speaker, electronics or anything else. Yes, the pursuit of audio nirvana is very alluring, especially when you love music.
The only truth is music….Music blends with the heartbeat universe and we forget the brain beat. - Jack Kerouac
To stay on point with this thread topic, I can tell when a system is voiced properly not just because of what my ears are transmitting to my brain, but by how/if my head is bobbing, my toes are tapping, or if I'm "moved" to dance and/or sing along.
At some point, "better" gear just doesn't do that. Only more music.
Many years ago I changed my listening habits, primarily because I'm the proverbial "deadhead". When I first started listening to Grateful Dead (80's) I couldn't understand what all the fuss over "different versions" of the same song, albeit performed on a different date and at a different venue, was all about. But at some point, it just "hit me". And as Bob Marley sings, this is the one good thing about music; when it hits you feel no pain.
So then I started "collecting" (90's) all Grateful Dead music I could get my hands (ears) on. Not long after listening to GD constantly, I realized that approximately half the songs they ever performed live, are cover songs (i.e. they are not the original composer). Then, I started listening to those artists, and my overall appreciation of music and artistic talent became greater and greater. Sure, like all of us, I started listening to music as a child. And many of those artists are still "with me" today, in mind, spirit, and on my hard drives! If I listen to song I heard essentially in my infancy, like something from The Beatles, it's rather simple to know if my system - or someone else's - is "voiced" correctly.
These days I make it a point to always listen to something different. Hence this is one reason why I collect and listen to "live" music recordings. After I've listened to a studio album once, I just don't get the same enjoyment factor if I were to listen to it again. But that's just me.
Many audiophiles desire to constantly change their gear, or "something" about their system. I do not operate that way. Unless something is obviously wrong, I can stay content with my system for many years. Sure, I might tweak something here or there, but the dominant variable is the music itself.
Changing gear doesn't necessarily make anything sound better. More often than not it boils down to "different", not "better" or "worse".
Well, the aforementioned is my philosophy anyway.
Best.
Hal
-
Beyond one's own hearing acuity, I think a valid argument can be made that no microphone is "exactly perfect". So, it follows that the expectation level of playing back sound(s) that have been recorded can also never be exactly perfect, no matter the room, speaker, electronics or anything else. Yes, the pursuit of audio nirvana is very alluring, especially when you love music.
The only truth is music….Music blends with the heartbeat universe and we forget the brain beat. - Jack Kerouac
To stay on point with this thread topic, I can tell when a system is voiced properly not just because of what my ears are transmitting to my brain, but by how/if my head is bobbing, my toes are tapping, or if I'm "moved" to dance and/or sing along.
At some point, "better" gear just doesn't do that. Only more music.
Many years ago I changed my listening habits, primarily because I'm the proverbial "deadhead". When I first started listening to Grateful Dead (80's) I couldn't understand what all the fuss over "different versions" of the same song, albeit performed on a different date and at a different venue, was all about. But at some point, it just "hit me". And as Bob Marley sings, this is the one good thing about music; when it hits you feel no pain.
So then I started "collecting" (90's) all Grateful Dead music I could get my hands (ears) on. Not long after listening to GD constantly, I realized that approximately half the songs they ever performed live, are cover songs (i.e. they are not the original composer). Then, I started listening to those artists, and my overall appreciation of music and artistic talent became greater and greater. Sure, like all of us, I started listening to music as a child. And many of those artists are still "with me" today, in mind, spirit, and on my hard drives! If I listen to song I heard essentially in my infancy, like something from The Beatles, it's rather simple to know if my system - or someone else's - is "voiced" correctly.
These days I make it a point to always listen to something different. Hence this is one reason why I collect and listen to "live" music recordings. After I've listened to a studio album once, I just don't get the same enjoyment factor if I were to listen to it again. But that's just me.
Many audiophiles desire to constantly change their gear, or "something" about their system. I do not operate that way. Unless something is obviously wrong, I can stay content with my system for many years. Sure, I might tweak something here or there, but the dominant variable is the music itself.
Changing gear doesn't necessarily make anything sound better. More often than not it boils down to "different", not "better" or "worse".
Well, the aforementioned is my philosophy anyway.
Best.
Hal
Hi Hal,
I appreciate you views, although I saw several assumptions made. Of course you understand
that assumptions are about as valid as speculations.
I take it you have not been able to find anything better than what components you have now,
just different? I am glad you are happy with your system. One of the joys of life is listening to
good music. Being at the venue of the Vienna or Berlin Orchestras without being there is one
of the great joys of my work. I love live music.
I have some comments etc if I may.
1. Personally, I would like to be as close to the live event/experience as possible in sound
reproduction at home. I never get tired of playing my favorites over and over. Good music
reaches one's heart and soul.
2. "At some point, "better" gear just doesn't do that. Only more music." There appears
to be an assumption that nothing is better, just different. Better, live is not as good?
I am wondering if you are, like many people, believing that expensive must be better?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
3. Being "voiced correctly" is a relative term. I have heard a beautifully recorded flute decades ago,
but now that same beautifully recorded flute sounds even more natural/real/live. "Voiced correctly
is a relative term, they both sound natural, but one is more natural than the other. A slight veil has
been lifted. The harmonics are just a bit more accurate/natural when compared to a live flute.
4. Not better or worse, just different? Same assumption as at the beginning of your comments.
Interestingly, there is actually a 10A line preamplifier in the classified forum here for sale on Ebay. It has
been years since I have seen an ad. An 11A ad is virtually never. I believe the AR3, Ultra-verve preampliers
are in such a class. Why are some components coveted more than others?
I think we can agree that we both like live music.
cheers
steve
-
Hi Steve. I appreciate your feedback. :)
Sure, I've made assumptions. And I agree with you, (paraphrasing) a live event is best. But that's kind of my point. When you're at a live event, especially acoustic, you're likely to hear many unamplified sounds. In this context unamplified means the sound didn't first pass through a microphone. Once the sound passes through a mic, there is some degree of loss that has already occurred. You can't make up for what has been lost by playing back a recorded version of it.
To your other point, the fact that certain gear is somehow "revered" relative to other gear is, in my opinion, just part of the human condition where we somehow think that "normality" (in this example what it is that's being revered) is correct. Rather, normality is merely what the majority of the 8 billion of us humans do, think, etc.
Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F. Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps as much as 3 degrees.
"All of audiophilia is a search for the perfect distortion profile."
- Jason Stoddard
Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*.
Add to that that once someone convinces themselves that something *is* better, as soon as blind or double blind testing is used, said individual becomes rather less convinced.
And yes, Steve. We can agree that we both like live music. :J
-
Not that complicated. If one is familiar with live music tonality and harmonics. One needs a starting point. My choice is speaker/room choice. Then Amp then front end then preamp. Cables as the tone controls. When the toes are a tapping and your singing along job well done.
The choices at the beginning are crucial. Playing Trumpet and Guitar in the listening room teaches you a lot about tonality and harmonics. Having a Grand Piano close by to hear is a great benefit.
charles
-
Hi Steve. I appreciate your feedback. :)
Sure, I've made assumptions. And I agree with you, (paraphrasing) a live event is best. But that's kind of my point. When you're at a live event, especially acoustic, you're likely to hear many unamplified sounds. In this context unamplified means the sound didn't first pass through a microphone. Once the sound passes through a mic, there is some degree of loss that has already occurred. You can't make up for what has been lost by playing back a recorded version of it.
To your other point, the fact that certain gear is somehow "revered" relative to other gear is, in my opinion, just part of the human condition where we somehow think that "normality" (in this example what it is that's being revered) is correct. Rather, normality is merely what the majority of the 8 billion of us humans do, think, etc.
Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F. Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps as much as 3 degrees.
"All of audiophilia is a search for the perfect distortion profile."
- Jason Stoddard
Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*.
Add to that that once someone convinces themselves that something *is* better, as soon as blind or double blind testing is used, said individual becomes rather less convinced.
And yes, Steve. We can agree that we both like live music. :J
Hi Hal,
Glad to read your response as it is heartfelt. I would like to address some main issues, again
assumptions, listening to others, and testing methods as factual and/or scientific when they are
not.
The "mic" seems to be of special interest. Whether than means an actual mic or all of the
electronics I cannot tell.
However, my brother and I worked with audio, recording each other on a tape deck years ago.
Nothing special mind you. We would comment on how accurate the reproduction of our voices were.
We were 12 and 14 years old. The point is the "mic" itself has little distortion when it is
fed into accurate electronic components. Oh we may miss some peripheral, spacial information, it
depends upon the type of mic used as well.
Recording quality depends upon the electronics used just as it does with venue, speakers etc.
Recording quality varies wildly. When one sees a "console" in studio, the electronic's parts quality
inside is about the same as a cheap $199.00 stereo receiver. Cheapest junk parts, poor designs.
That is no exaggeration. Different designs do sound closer to accurate than others.
I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed
component. That is not your fault as I have yet to find anyone who understands how to design
a basic component. A very few have almost, by accident, come close to being accurate/natural.
There is respect for those I have listed for a reason. If one actually checks, those pieces are more
accurate to the source. Testing is not simply installing in a system, like reviewers do, and coming
to a conclusion.
The nonsense, the unscientific posts in some forums and taken as science boggles the mind. One
must be on guard all the time.
One example that comes to mind are articles that compare and rate capacitors. Oh, they will tell
you the results are not absolute, to cover themselves, but then post "their findings" anyway not
knowing if their results are even close to accurate.
A couple of problems.
1. The capacitor under test is the wrong value. If the value in ufd is too small, the accurate ones will
sound anemic. The poorer, more fuller sounding ones will be given a higher score. The good ones
become extinct.
2. How much does the testing component design itself affect the test results.
Loving distortion, yep, some do. They love to manipulate and create their own music by using junk
designs. Does the music sound like the real thing though? I compare to live instruments.
"Here's an analogy. What does science tell us that normal human body temperature is? Answer, 98.6F.
Now, is that *everybody's* temperature *all the time*. Certainly not. Big variables plus/minus perhaps
as much as 3 degrees."
If people like a different sound, so be it. But I thought you prefer a live event as I do.
"Yes, I've been able to find better gear over time, experimentation, etc. But that's merely my subjective opinion. Audio gear usually can be measured objectively. Once objectivity is brought to bear, I find it interesting that (usually, of course there are exceptions) most folks tend to like the sound of gear that measures *worse*, and dislike the sound of gear that measures *better*."
Specialized listening tests check for differences, not preferences.
The specs given for a component hardly qualify as useful, except in some rare cases.
For instance, +/- 0,1db FR, as mentioned in an earlier post means virtually nothing; in the range of
-54db change. I suppose if masking is involved which can come from any component.
1 part in a million change in tonal balance is -114db to -120db down. HD does not mean
much either if an amp is only putting out a watt (unless a tiny SET amp).
What about objective channel separation not being listed in the specs?
What about other forms of distortion not mentioned in the specs. (See RCA Radiotron
Designers Handbook by 26 engineers for 6 different types, plus one or two of my own.)
Performed the way they are, blind and double blind testing actually skews the results toward no sonic
difference. Sight is taught and pushed as the only confound.
The individual public will perform the test incorrectly every single time with the
same false results. Interestingly, they claim science while teaching against science.
But how is the public to know.
Interestingly, I have found this same group posting fake graphs, going after a major peer reviewed
study. Reminds me of an article published by a criminal defense attorney, Martin DeWulf, titled
"Truth be Told". In it, the author brings out the point that a group gathers at different
forums claiming science while actually teaching against science. Same as what I had experienced.
A question. If there is a group blind or double blind test, and half the group are in a statistically bass
increasing mode while the other half are in a bass decreasing mode, how does the test arrive at
95% confidence of a sonic difference?
cheers
steve
-
Not that complicated. If one is familiar with live music tonality and harmonics. One needs a starting point. My choice is speaker/room choice. Then Amp then front end then preamp. Cables as the tone controls. When the toes are a tapping and your singing along job well done.
The choices at the beginning are crucial. Playing Trumpet and Guitar in the listening room teaches you a lot about tonality and harmonics. Having a Grand Piano close by to hear is a great benefit.
charles
I have a violin here, and piano nearby. I played trombone in school. All helps.
Thanks for presenting the info Charles.
steve
-
Steve while all valid in the Engineering world it is over our heads and frankly not important to the average Audiophile. All we have is our ears, room and system. I do not need a blind test to tell me what I am hearing.
I choose live recordings mostly for listening. My reference is live music by real instruments in my room. Try hitting some cymbals and then be amazed as the natural decay of the harmonic, shimmer and detail. Let the Engineers figure it out and we will be the Judge.
charles
-
Steve while all valid in the Engineering world it is over our heads and frankly not important to the average Audiophile. All we have is our ears, room and system. I do not need a blind test to tell me what I am hearing.
I choose live recordings mostly for listening. My reference is live music by real instruments in my room. Try hitting some cymbals and then be amazed as the natural decay of the harmonic, shimmer and detail. Let the Engineers figure it out and we will be the Judge.
charles
Huh? I never said you needed to perform a blind/dbt test. I testified against such testing the
way it is performed.
See post #35 for this quote against blind/dbt testing.
"Performed the way they are, blind and double blind testing actually skews the results
toward no sonic difference. Sight is taught and pushed as the only confound.
The individual public will perform the test incorrectly every single time with the
same false results. Interestingly, they claim science while teaching against science.
But how is the public to know."
And I use live instruments like you do. I own a violin in my apt, have a piano close by, and had
played the trombone in my younger years. I know what live instruments sound like. See post #36.
I was not clear enough?
cheers
steve
-
I rarely go to live concerts and when I do, it’s in a large venue. So there’s not that much benefit in attending. Ideally, it would be great to hear many instruments individually and up close. But again, I’m really not in a position to experience that. So most of what I know about the sound of instruments is thru tv, video and audio recordings. With the improvements within the last two years gained by new components, speakers, wires, AC filtration etc. I’m getting much closer to what I think is the true sound of various instruments. Not ideal, but it’s what I have to work with….
-
@Steve
Steve, I realize your last post was directed @rollo. Nevertheless, I’d like to respond. First, I think you mean to refer to post 36, not 35. I could be mistaken though. Forgive me if I am.
I conducted a cursory (5-minute) google search of you, SAS Audio Labs, and the specific gear you developed. I must say, all is good on that front! Kudos to you. I couldn’t find anything that suggests that you are not entirely credible, knowledgeable, and design very good products.
It’s perfectly fine that you dispel any kind of blind testing. And in fact, whatever your personal philosophy is regarding the “voicing” of an audio system is also perfectly fine. But let’s be realistic for a moment, shall we?
Nothing in an audio system (room, speakers, cables, electronics, amp, preamp, dac, turntable, cartridge, transport, electrical supply, something else, or a deity) is going to “change” or “influence” a recording to the extent that you or anyone else is going to hear something so overwhelmingly compelling that one immediately sells or discards their gear, by throwing it out the proverbial window, and then replaces it immediately with that which compelled them to do so. In this context, “overwhelming” means nothing short of a song is played on a “system”, and three verses are sung and documented online lyrically. Then, one or more components are changed in the same system, or an entirely different system is used. Immediately thereafter, upon playing the exact same song and version, there is a fourth verse that is sung. Sorry, but that simply is not going to happen. Certainly you agree. If you disagree and are willing and able to prove it to me, I propose you insert any component of your choosing into my system, or install a completely different system entirely of your own in my space, and I (and independent witnesses of both our choosing) hear another, different verse, using any song of your choosing, I shall award you an amount of legal tender that will be many, many, many multiples of your travel expenses. As in, show me your round-trip airline ticket purchase price, and multiply that by 100. No obligation, of course, just an offer in good faith.
After a certain – and often modest - level, “differences” become very subtle. Hence this is why I’ve previously stated changes in audio components usually result in something “different” as opposed to “better” or “worse”. This is especially true given that what one desires in the way of quality sound is rather subjective.
Charles (rollo) is correct in that voicing philosophy really is simple. Whatever it is that your particular ears (operative words here are “your particular ears”) are hearing and find desirable (or not), is the way to voice a system. It may not be the only way, but certainly is one way and a very important way, so much so that, IMO, it’s of paramount importance.
To your assertion “I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed component’ I think is both overreaching and inaccurate. Hence the offer I’ve made herein. But of course, you are in fact entitled to “think” however you like.
If you get confused, listen to the music play – Franklin’s Tower – Grateful Dead
-
@Steve
Steve, I realize your last post was directed @rollo. Nevertheless, I’d like to respond. First, I think you mean to refer to post 36, not 35. I could be mistaken though. Forgive me if I am.
I conducted a cursory (5-minute) google search of you, SAS Audio Labs, and the specific gear you developed. I must say, all is good on that front! Kudos to you. I couldn’t find anything that suggests that you are not entirely credible, knowledgeable, and design very good products.
It’s perfectly fine that you dispel any kind of blind testing. And in fact, whatever your personal philosophy is regarding the “voicing” of an audio system is also perfectly fine. But let’s be realistic for a moment, shall we?
Nothing in an audio system (room, speakers, cables, electronics, amp, preamp, dac, turntable, cartridge, transport, electrical supply, something else, or a deity) is going to “change” or “influence” a recording to the extent that you or anyone else is going to hear something so overwhelmingly compelling that one immediately sells or discards their gear, by throwing it out the proverbial window, and then replaces it immediately with that which compelled them to do so. In this context, “overwhelming” means nothing short of a song is played on a “system”, and three verses are sung and documented online lyrically. Then, one or more components are changed in the same system, or an entirely different system is used. Immediately thereafter, upon playing the exact same song and version, there is a fourth verse that is sung. Sorry, but that simply is not going to happen. Certainly you agree. If you disagree and are willing and able to prove it to me, I propose you insert any component of your choosing into my system, or install a completely different system entirely of your own in my space, and I (and independent witnesses of both our choosing) hear another, different verse, using any song of your choosing, I shall award you an amount of legal tender that will be many, many, many multiples of your travel expenses. As in, show me your round-trip airline ticket purchase price, and multiply that by 100. No obligation, of course, just an offer in good faith.
After a certain – and often modest - level, “differences” become very subtle. Hence this is why I’ve previously stated changes in audio components usually result in something “different” as opposed to “better” or “worse”. This is especially true given that what one desires in the way of quality sound is rather subjective.
Charles (rollo) is correct in that voicing philosophy really is simple. Whatever it is that your particular ears (operative words here are “your particular ears”) are hearing and find desirable (or not), is the way to voice a system. It may not be the only way, but certainly is one way and a very important way, so much so that, IMO, it’s of paramount importance.
To your assertion “I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed component’ I think is both overreaching and inaccurate. Hence the offer I’ve made herein. But of course, you are in fact entitled to “think” however you like.
If you get confused, listen to the music play – Franklin’s Tower – Grateful Dead
Hi Hal,
Thanks for the compliments. When performing specialized listening testing over the decades, subjects
could not tell if the 11A was in the system or out of the system, the output sounding just like the input.
Amp is also very very similar.
As such I do believe in multiple methods of listening testing, just Not the one way guaranteed to skew
the results 100% of the time toward no sonic difference. The one wrong way being taught and pushed
by "objectivists, experts, even "claimed scientists"" who work for certain companies and have certain
patents which would be rendered worthless.
One has to be careful whom one listens to on other forums Hal. I could tell horrendous stories of what
happens behind the scenes if one does not pay reviewers under the table, sell at a small fraction of the
costs to reviewers, what happens on other audio forums etc. Please be careful.
If you believe in the fourth paragraph, so be it. I would be careful when basing your beliefs on hearsay
in forums, and your own previous auditions, audio shows etc. You are making another assumption based
on your own experience.
What you are proposing concerning inserting one component into a system and bang, will purchase it etc
is actually against science. I thought you would understand that basic scientific fact.
For newbies, the reason is that the said rest of the system still has flaws, so
1. a perfect component has no masking problems, so will further expose the existing system flaws further.
For example, if a system is bright, the existing X component may fill out the sound for a more natural experience.
However, replacing X with a perfect component will allow the system to be bright as the preamplifier is totally transparent and alters nothing.
2. A perfect component may alter the spacial information as more low level information is forth coming.
3. The existing connecting ics may have excessive capacitance that my alter the perfect component's performance.
"After a certain – and often modest - level, “differences” become very subtle. Hence this is why I’ve previously stated changes in audio components usually result in something “different” as opposed to “better” or “worse”. This is especially true given that what one desires in the way of quality sound is rather subjective."
That is only based upon your limited personal experience and listening to others.
Another problem with your statement is, how do you know what is attainable, what is possible, and what is not?
Again it is an assumption, guess work on your part.
"Charles (rollo) is correct in that voicing philosophy really is simple. Whatever it is that your particular ears (operative words here are “your particular ears”) are hearing and find desirable (or not), is the way to voice a system. It may not be the only way, but certainly is one way and a very important way, so much so that, IMO, it’s of paramount importance."
And what else did Charles say???? He said he uses live instruments. I am sure live venues as well.
As far as ears, the differences in preferences are from the venues in which we form our standards.
That part is true.
"To your assertion “I think the problem you are facing, as are others, is that you have never heard a properly designed component’ I think is both overreaching and inaccurate. Hence the offer I’ve made herein. But of course, you are in fact entitled to “think” however you like. "
Not not much doubt that many of us use live instruments and venues as references to voice our systems. The
question is what venues? To those who wish their own music, by all means go for it.
As far as me exaggerating, again another assumption made.
cheers, gotta get going.
steve
-
@Steve
Sorry. But now, "I'm on fire". That's a Jefferson Starship reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Sung in the Paul Kantner , wooden ships style. Please, have a listen.
I'll reply to this part of your statement (last post):
"That is only based upon your limited personal experience and listening to others.
Another problem with your statement is, how do you know what is attainable, what is possible, and what is not?
Again it is an assumption, guess work on your part."
You can't be serious, can you?
My experience is that of a 60-year-old, who didn't just materialize on this planet. I revolved around the sun 60 times, in the same way, you and everybody else do. Everybody's personal experience is limited. Including yours.
"And all you touch and all you see, Is all your life will ever be." - That's a Pink Floyd reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Please have a listen
From an audio reproduction perspective, I know what is and is not attainable by listening to dozens of musicians, over many years, playing various instruments (string, wood, piano) within two to three feet of my presence. I studied music in high school and played clarinet for four years. My daughter is an accomplished flutist, using a flute custom-made for her - that I paid nearly $10,000 for. Add to that the nearly three dozen "hi-end audiophile-grade systems" I've heard (at least two of which cost north of $100K). Add to that my obsession with being a grateful deadhead, where one millisecond of missing music resulting in a spliced recording has me cataloging the recording (specific song) as such, only days, months, or in many cases years later trading, finding, or otherwise obtaining the uncut version and then updating my catalog and re-listening.
Please, do not state I'm making assumptions or "guessing". This is how I know what is and what is not attainable. Make sense?
Best.
Hal
EDIT: I'll add that I myself am a somewhat decent "G" chord open mic singer, having performed in numerous watering holes throughout the years, accompanied by some rather talented bands, such as wonderful stories and my summer.
-
@Steve
Sorry. But now, "I'm on fire". That's a Jefferson Starship reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Sung in the Paul Kantner , wooden ships style. Please, have a listen.
I'll reply to this part of your statement (last post):
"That is only based upon your limited personal experience and listening to others.
Another problem with your statement is, how do you know what is attainable, what is possible, and what is not?
Again it is an assumption, guess work on your part."
You can't be serious, can you?
My experience is that of a 60-year-old, who didn't just materialize on this planet. I revolved around the sun 60 times, in the same way, you and everybody else do. Everybody's personal experience is limited. Including yours.
"And all you touch and all you see, Is all your life will ever be." - That's a Pink Floyd reference, in case you're unfamiliar. Please have a listen
From an audio reproduction perspective, I know what is and is not attainable by listening to dozens of musicians, over many years, playing various instruments (string, wood, piano) within two to three feet of my presence. I studied music in high school and played clarinet for four years. My daughter is an accomplished flutist, using a flute custom-made for her - that I paid nearly $10,000 for. Add to that the nearly three dozen "hi-end audiophile-grade systems" I've heard (at least two of which cost north of $100K). Add to that my obsession with being a grateful deadhead, where one millisecond of missing music resulting in a spliced recording has me cataloging the recording (specific song) as such, only days, months, or in many cases years later trading, finding, or otherwise obtaining the uncut version and then updating my catalog and re-listening.
Please, do not state I'm making assumptions or "guessing". This is how I know what is and what is not attainable. Make sense?
Best.
Hal
Hi Hal,
Quoting someone is not fact. I have yet to hear a satisfactory response except excuses, assumptions, and
quoting individuals as if it means something.
Something novel, why not play some Chopin, Beethoven, Vivalvi, Divorak, Ravel, how about the
links presented on string "sharing top notch, reference musical links on your system. Got the
LP Don't let me be mis-understood by Santa Esmeralda?
What is your system setup optimized for?
The fact is that electronics does make a substantial difference when voicing a system. Unfortnately,
there are always those who feel it necessary to damn those for wanting and attaining the highest
quality musical, natural experience. I am sorry you feel that way. You claim you love live, then attack
those who want and who attain it.
I am 73, known many older and younger, and been to many shows, been to houses. Who says the
100+ grand systems are any better, or even as good as a 10 grand system. Such is common to
those who equate musical quality to price, which means little to nothing. With that said, there is a
minimum necessary for proper parts selection for a well designed component (Plus profit of course).
You did previously post that you love live performances, even in your last post.
So why are you knocking the electronics that help bring about that performance.
One would think you would be embracing such reproduction capability.
Why have you constantly attacked what you claim is what you want.
Why don't you want others to have the live experience.
What is probably the most scary concept though, is that no one can attempt
to improve voicing with more accurate electronics unless he/she has your
permission, which you have consistently argued against.
And yet you still consistently claim to love live music.
cheers
steve
-
Thanks, gents. Very interesting reading… :pop
-
@Nick B
Yes, the proverbial popcorn is very tasty 😋
@Steve
At this point of the thread, and our back-and-forth in particular, I'm of the opinion I cannot offer anything in writing that someone with good sensibility and logic do not already know, agree with, understand and prefer to no longer have to read about. So, in that context and spirit, I'll kindly bow out of engaging further with you on this particular subject/thread.
I'll add that you might be rather surprised and impressed with my classical music collection.
Best.
Hal
-
We are not listening to live music, we are listening to recordings in a studio, with microphones and recording engineers.
Ever been to a live music event that sounded bad? I have.
I was at one concert in a modern church, all angles, stone and glass, the acoustics were awful, it hurt...
I get tired of hearing the same old dribble without any real thought behind it, do audiophiles ever grow up?
Do audiophiles actually like music, that is a better topic.
Ever listen to the music played at audio shows???dreck....
Can I start a topic like this or will I be banned...again
-
We are not listening to live music, we are listening to recordings in a studio, with microphones and recording engineers.
Ever been to a live music event that sounded bad? I have.
I was at one concert in a modern church, all angles, stone and glass, the acoustics were awful, it hurt...
I get tired of hearing the same old dribble without any real thought behind it, do audiophiles ever grow up?
Do audiophiles actually like music, that is a better topic.
Ever listen to the music played at audio shows???dreck....
Can I start a topic like this or will I be banned...again
It’s ok with me and I’ll let CEO Jeremy speak for himself
-
this post has been read 818 times!!
how is this possible, there only 4 or 5 people on this site
bots!
-
this post has been read 818 times!!
how is this possible, there only 4 or 5 people on this site
bots!
There are a lot of lurkers here, but 818 reads does seem a tad on the l o n g side. I haven't been posting much lately due to family health issues. I simply don't have the time to get into long winded circular arguments, besides - no one changes their minds and that is time I'll never get back.
-
PI your a riot!!!!
You hit the nail on the head!!
-
We are not listening to live music, we are listening to recordings in a studio, with microphones and recording engineers.....
Except live performances, recorded live. As in a member of the audience using their own microphone and recording gear. I have plenty of those, many of which are absolutely phenomenal.
Best.
Hal
@doug s.
You may have posted your previous comment in the wrong thread.
-
i agree w/most of what you're saying, however for the end listener, i've always felt, and still do feel that the single-most important component in any playback system is the room.
Hi Doug.
I recognize you from days gone by via audiogon.
In any case, sorry to disagree with you. If you check my post number 28 in this thread, dated 12/4/22 8:45:54PM, I do mention the room, as you also do.
However, make no mistake as to my opinion regarding the room pecking order, reiterated herein this post. The following prevails, IMO, in the order as listed.
1 - your own personal hearing acuity and preference. ... a lot of subjectivity and objectivity involved.
2. - the recording itself. what it is you're trying to reproduce after it's been performed live or in the studio, and the quality of the recording.
3 - the environment. this includes the room, dimensions of room, treatments such as absorption and diffusion, and environmental factors such as temperature , humidity ,EMI, RFI etc. Also includes quiescent noise floor of surrounding environment.
4 - speakers. This includes everything in the way of transducers. Their type, placement and the number thereof. Crossovers vs no crossovers. Dipole, box, open back, planar, etc. Also extremely important is your proximity to the transducers when listening. This includes on/off axis listening, near field or far field.
5 - the topology of ones system. This includes whether it's analog , digital , solid state, tube or a combination hybrid of those . Also can include objective measurements data.
6 - other variables such as acts of God, cables, electrical supply, etc. Balanced power has a profound impact on the sound of ones system. Not better or worse, but immediately and readily/noticably different.
Best.
Hal
-
re: taping shows, i'd also love a link to that - especially dead tapes. when in college, i had roommates who would be at any ded show within 24 hr's drive, w/their hi end mics and nak decks making tapes, and once a week or so, they'd be getting tapes in the mail from folks they'd met, and sending tapes out. i think they had something like >200 dead tapes, and this was in the late 70's. because i was into little feat, they also started collecting lttle feat tapes, and trying to record a few of their shows; i think they had about 50...
thanks!
doug s.
A link you say/ask/write?
Pick a Grateful Dead show. I can then let you know the various sources available, from which you can choose. I'll then make it available for you and others to download herein this thread.
Yes, I literally have (and listened to) everything.
http://halr.x10.mx/shows.html
-
Re notification, your email address hasn’t changed and you’ve checked your spam and junk folders as well? If still not working, I’ll ask the boss and chief technical wizard Jeremy
:thumb:
good luck w/the move; keep us posted. those piega 311's would kick serious buna in a small room, if given a bit of breathing room. the hornings might be a bit much.
re: not being notified of posts, i'm aware of which boxes to tick to get notified, but it's not happening. the only box it's telling me to tick now is "unnotify" 😉
best,
doug s.
Hey Doug,
Sorry for my late response. I just saw this today and I normally just tap on the “show posts since last visit” tab, and not the one below it. Those are some very nice speakers that you have shown. My speakers are either on a boat somewhere in the Atlantic or sitting in customs or who knows where else. The distributor hasn’t been very responsive and I need to follow up on this. I’ve been so busy with moving and I have yet to spend one evening in my home as I’m still waiting for painting and flooring to be completed. My new place has a smaller listening area and it will be a challenge to make things sound good. But that’s a project that is at least 2 to 3 weeks into the future.
As to you not being notified of posts, there should be a notify tab at the bottom, and I would think that would fix the problem.
Nick
-
There certainly no circle discussion. All follows the laws of science.
"then we have playback. there is no one single device that plays back recordings that we can hear. it's a chain. so, there's really no way to know what's "perfect". it's a balancing act. steve is trying to perform a sisyphean task, imo. because he wants the "perfect" playback chain from stylus (or streamer, or transport, or tape, or computer, or???) to your ear. way too many things happening between the the time the software hits its first piece of gear to the last release from the actual sound emitter and then head to your ear. and what is the environment your ear is in, and how does the sound emitter react to that environment?"
>>There are actually no “too many things” between the input to the speakers in my system. Yes it is more difficult for consumers to know what is most accurate. However, I do understand that one must audition as many tube components as possible. Besides my 10A, 11A line preamplifier (I am retired), the Ultra-Verve, the upgraded AR-3, ST 70 from Pro-Musica are extremely excellent preamps/amps. However, I do not recommend any solid state components. See below the inherent problems one faces, which the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, 26+ engineers address
from before 1960.
>>Yes it is quite possible to design a perfectly accurate amp, preamp, even phono stage. Once one gets those and the ics accurate in an absolute sense, then perform the source/speaker/speaker wires/finish room treatments. It is the room that creates the modes, so if the room is quite small, it might be necessary to create a high pass filter to limit modes.
"so, someone may love their ripe amp because their speakers are lean, and an accurate amp doesn't sound as good. the end result may in fact be "perfect". or a perfectly naturally sounding speaker may sound like dookie, if it's in a room that's either too hard or too absorbent. (is there a speaker that sounds perfect regardless of the room it's in?) and, a device may actually measure less than perfect, but more closely sound like the real live unrecorded sound."
>>The end result will never be “perfect using a lean and ripe”. For one, there are many other sonic problems with said lean speakers and said ripe amp. Even Hal mentioned once the sound is compromised, it is not possible to get it back. Two wrongs don’t make a right but cost may limit what one can do.
>>The solution is to rid of as many faults as possible and replace the at fault components with more accurate ones. I mean on my test speakers I am down to 1 part in a 1,000,000. That is between -114db and -120db down and musical differences are clearly heard.
>>References were given above for amp and preamp. Ics one will have to test although it is easy to check if an ic is fairly accurate. (Mine are not shielded so of limited use in other systems.) In a small room, it may be necessary to limit the bass response/modes. If worse comes to worse, a simple RC 6db filter network might be enough. Please make sure the caps and resistor is high quality, such as a Mundorf Supreme.
>>More info on parts and components.
>>All solid state and most tube amplifiers use electrolytic capacitors. An electrolytic capacitor has a DA of around 5. Many electrolytic capacitors are used in solid state amplifiers with their many stages. A few, lower ufd values in tubes.
>>The DA of a good polypropylene capacitor is around 0.02, or 250 times less Dielectric Absorption effect.
>>The ESR of an electrolytic capacitor is many times higher than a good poly cap.
>>Electrolytic capacitors are very temperature sensitive (see graph below), and the
ufd lowers as the frequency increases, both of which affects musical accuracy.
Polys are many times better in both respects .
>>Below are graphs of typical electrolytic capacitors and Poly type capacitors to show
some of the differences which affects musical qualities.
>>With the electrolytic capacitor graph #8. The horizontal X line is temperature, the vertical line Y is uf change, or percentage lost. That change affects the music accuracy.
>>Notice the electrolytic capacitors start curving near the bottom and rise in the 500+ hz range. That is the inductance causing the change in reactance, ESL, starting its dirty work and continuing into the most sensitive area of human hearing on up. Electrolytic capacitors also degrade the dynamics.
>>Figure #9, X line is frequency and Y line is ohms. The poly type capacitors sharply decrease until the hundreds of thousands of hz. That vs 500hz. What an immense difference. (Fig. 8,9 from Picking Capacitors by Walter Jung and Richard Marsh.) Solid state amps use tens of thousands of ufd. Tubes a few hundred at most.
>>While their may be 3-5 tubes in an amp, a SS amp can have a dozen transistors or more. There is much more
than harmonic distortion to consider.
>>Solid state devices all have leakage properties. A 1N914/1N4148, with 1pf capacitance, good for multiple millions of hz will bleed audio through even when biased off. Same with larger devices since there are physical connections vs vacuum between elements of a vacuum tube.
>>Anyone who has performed any testing at all understands how electrolytic capacitors, solid materials negatively affect musical quality in both solid state and tube components. It has been known for decades, with RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook (26 engineers+) addressing the subjects like capacitors etc.
Now we are to believe in magic that musical playback degradation is only minor and not needed in voicing a system.
Cheers
steve
-
I think Steve, being an electrical engineer, is voicing his system with an oscilloscope rather than using his ears.
I mean no slight here, I find many people with these technical backgrounds see music in terms of electrons and measurements, hence all the stories about cables making no sonic differences.
When audiophiles talk about synergy they are indeed talking about matching components, a warm amp with lean speakers...
Of course you really can't measure a warm or lean amp to show these attributes but you can hear them.
Some like to use wire with gain, as the supreme example of a preamp. I don't believe it is correct. We use our preamps for much more than a selector switch and volume control. Preamps add to the voicing of a system, and preamps have a sound.
What about the amp/speaker relationship, surely different amps sound different on the same speaker we all know this, and I'm not talking about using 300B's for Maggies.
I think when we talk about putting a system together we are actually talking about creating a synergistic relationship between all the components, at least that is what we are trying to do with the available money and gear we have access to.
How many times have been to shows where rooms were put together haphazardly and synergy was at a loss and we could tell.
I have heard Steves preamp, it reminded me of a cleaner leaner Audible Illusions modulus 3, his preamp coupled with the right amp could be a very nice match for the right speaker. In fact if we had an unlimited amount of gear to play with I think many synergized systems could come out of all the possibles combinations. Add in cables and things get even more complex.
Cables are a sort of cheat, a way to cheat a system that needs some help with synergy and push into a synergized mode.
Since most people do not have oscilloscopes nor know how to use one, we just end up using our ears and our ears are far more sensitive than a scope at analyzing music reproduction
-
This is my oscilloscope
-
@doug s.
Hi Doug. I'd just like to add a little clarification to some things you wrote in your last post, addressed to @Steve.
First I am *not* using any kind of DSP to do "voicing" of my system. Secondly, what I was referring to regarding sound being compromised is that the artifacts and imperfections occur right at the beginning of the recording process as no recording process is 100% perfect as far as capturing every single nuance that's possible to capture, relative to your personal attendance at a particular venue and seeing and listening with your own eyes/ears. Thereafter, what I'm stating is that *nothing* can be done in the playback of anything already recorded that can "correct any imperfection". This is also the reason that I've stated, numerous times, that after one's own hearing acuity capabilities, the next most dominant Factor that's going to influence Sonic quality is the recording itself. But in no way have I ever stated that a recording can be absolutely perfect. Very close to perfect, yes.
"If this ain't the real thing, then it's close enough to pretend" - saint of circumstance - Grateful Dead
-
steve,
you say "There are actually no(t) “too many things” between the input to the speakers in my system..."
i disagree - an amp, and a preamp and speakers, with associated wiring is too many things. yes, the speakers are a thing, too. and you ignore the recording side of the equation. and you ignore sources - another layer of electronics and gear. (and re: analog, a quite extensive layer. which could also be said for digital as well, depending on how you want to slay that dragon.)
>>When designing, the preamp, amp, ics and speaker wires can easily be tested for accuracy. The speakers are back and forth and take time. I have also provided several preamplifiers and amps that are quite close to accurate for those
who cannot perform the work.
>>IF you had actually read my previous posts in this string, and in other strings, Doug, you would have seen my statements concerning sources and speakers. The audience has.
>>If you had actually read my previous posts in this string, and other strings, Doug, you would have seen my
comments concerning
1. actual quality of recordings and the recording process being at least 50%
2. that the recording quality varies
>>So are you insisting on higher quality recordings? I am.
>>IF you had read my previous posts in this string, and other strings, you would have understood
how I dealt with sources as well as speakers.
>>>>By the way, the main problems I have found with dacs is the analog sections being so deficient.
That includes both the DAC chip (digital to Analog conversion) and following analog stage (gain of 2 or 6db).
(A few use tubes for the following analog section, but still not very good.)
"yes, i said "so, someone may love their ripe amp because their speakers are lean, and an accurate amp doesn't sound as good. the end result may in fact be "perfect". have you ever heard of someone trying to simplify a topic by the way they've said it? it's very possible that an ever so slight additional warmth in one area of an amp would equate to a proper frequency response output, with all pace/timing/soundstaging/etc, clues intact, with a speaker that's ever so slightly recessed in this area. even if "hal mentioned the sound is compromised." we must simply agree to disagree on this point. (and, afaik, hal uses dsp to voice his systems - is he making it better, or compromising it further?)
>>Now you are attempting to narrow the scope and impact of what you stated. Yes it can be relative as you now indicate. When approaching voicing of a system/room, the electronics still has to be included as otherwise no
music to check. I think we all want better quality reproduction.
then, you talk about "then perform the source/speaker/speaker wires/finish room treatments" what's this? just exactly why i said it's not really possible to create the perfect component in a vacuum (no pun intended; i like tubed gear) - it's all interconnected! then, there's room nodes; the possible need to "add filtering" - ah, but aren't you compromising the accuracy? ;)
>>I had explained my procedures for the source and speakers in my previous posts. Did you not read that
procedure, or not understand Doug? In any case, the electronics still has to be used in order to voice the system, right?
>>It is true that some love artificially flavored music, high distortion for bloom etc. However, as the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook (1960 and before, 26+ engineers) states, that is not real fidelity.
finally, the "upgraded ar-3". seriously? i've heard these speakers (a long time ago.) yes, i thought they were nice. (i also liked the bose 901's i bought at the ripe old age of 13.) but to design the "perfect system", (and take 9 years to do it), around upgraded ar-3's? -6db at 40hz; -15db at 20hz? big drops between 125-250hz, 1khz-3khz; & a really big drop between 3-5khz, w/another drop at 6khz? well, i hope the upgrades were truly sensational! :D
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UYQmPL20Xbjvq3sXpr4Spd_Qdw5YsQtmvNwO53EtBZPMIBTOT8kKZXGWmcVaket3ztGSPTMBmgfVWUNO0I_EA4MGp1yg-7Mgp5LOnRj99rp4wSwgVWybyoBjDVLhx4LErJiZDkhwEOhkTTrFi_B8SpV4rF7LZwDezcJZIdxcjk2rMZXxmR-kMqWDEoytEgb0RB-rQcuZnW3waEZClSY3X26d7I0nw9mr8A6Hw-GFoO4bgI5-Cabd3mYlutAH8f2BWA7msCXEr1TPjf9PwuXc7ihVAlUihq8kZdjL1BcG9EipqRK0m9q78pb5oabMqnqHYem8yfBlrPsIUINE9uBqHxfj8a7phS4tTTfvA42qQy65zvns5llaaHobzslMy88j70wNQALYdcA6RX3SDyFoI9IJLnI1BXJ_YnmvgorvpulJ3Gq7NLQ-mVT-A3qDYlof1pVQDnB1GH44hBjkY-NRjYK1QOr1qq6BtuUo11WVTmAVHtrpGxzzvUgXYupUjzAjHLNuLQy9wsjkwh29Z6d7Coar-0scHRIpEy0a01GRwXQq5fqjlILtVNpZ_NdK_lO4KmZxnjIKjLP2nYvusQovgi2i2TBYl8JPmRtJCkBEPjzXcIQVBPHGNiRZjWnAbtm7xGlYlSWX_ZClJyLu3SV2D1ck1dZUS-xO-VOjCmKWYpnz_N0JLIu45RvAkAaqZgMDUPfeLDCBUqpsHuuNfbBFMwg0N1gpGuOGfVhCJ2SlFeMX4P1cUMuiKuxegDrp33vQ0Z4LlirCV2NS7YsRweP8Pkwh4GFBSwBHDFKoPYMH3hbSoQolo6qln7RXjA7uXvRqE9vA3ZvMFetAr5rsmztBQvFlCeec9pqqNiqi2EJb2v6mHdteL_ZO6s5R9vZWH8yyVQjaPzpSrhvDzNkG4EOih3MpQ5e8E7DWMvblt-tHfDjl=w451-h268-no?authuser=0)
>>No, I meant the SP-3 preamplifier. That is my bad Doug.
"sorry, you can't turn a vw beetle into a porsche 911..."
>>I did have a 914 2.0 though. True mid engine, absolutely loved that car. Like riding a go cart.
To bad I was rear ended by a Ford Granada at 45mph (police report) some 31 years ago.
>>cheers
imo, of course.
doug s.
- ps - you also said "I mean on my test speakers I am down to 1 part in a 1,000,000. That is between -114db and -120db down and musical differences are clearly heard."
more power to you; honestly, i think maybe 1 in a million could hear a 1 part in a million change like that. it reminds me of the late brian cheney, talking about the exceedingly minute changes he made to the caps & resistors in his speakers that were "clearly audible". i thought his speakers were great, especially at their price points, but i don't think most people can hear things like that. again, imo.
There certainly no circle discussion. All follows the laws of science.
"then we have playback. there is no one single device that plays back recordings that we can hear. it's a chain. so, there's really no way to know what's "perfect". it's a balancing act. steve is trying to perform a sisyphean task, imo. because he wants the "perfect" playback chain from stylus (or streamer, or transport, or tape, or computer, or???) to your ear. way too many things happening between the the time the software hits its first piece of gear to the last release from the actual sound emitter and then head to your ear. and what is the environment your ear is in, and how does the sound emitter react to that environment?"
>>There are actually no “too many things” between the input to the speakers in my system. Yes it is more difficult for consumers to know what is most accurate. However, I do understand that one must audition as many tube components as possible. Besides my 10A, 11A line preamplifier (I am retired), the Ultra-Verve, the upgraded AR-3, ST 70 from Pro-Musica are extremely excellent preamps/amps. However, I do not recommend any solid state components. See below the inherent problems one faces, which the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, 26+ engineers address
from before 1960.
>>Yes it is quite possible to design a perfectly accurate amp, preamp, even phono stage. Once one gets those and the ics accurate in an absolute sense, then perform the source/speaker/speaker wires/finish room treatments. It is the room that creates the modes, so if the room is quite small, it might be necessary to create a high pass filter to limit modes.
"so, someone may love their ripe amp because their speakers are lean, and an accurate amp doesn't sound as good. the end result may in fact be "perfect". or a perfectly naturally sounding speaker may sound like dookie, if it's in a room that's either too hard or too absorbent. (is there a speaker that sounds perfect regardless of the room it's in?) and, a device may actually measure less than perfect, but more closely sound like the real live unrecorded sound."
>>The end result will never be “perfect using a lean and ripe”. For one, there are many other sonic problems with said lean speakers and said ripe amp. Even Hal mentioned once the sound is compromised, it is not possible to get it back. Two wrongs don’t make a right but cost may limit what one can do.
>>The solution is to rid of as many faults as possible and replace the at fault components with more accurate ones. I mean on my test speakers I am down to 1 part in a 1,000,000. That is between -114db and -120db down and musical differences are clearly heard.
>>References were given above for amp and preamp. Ics one will have to test although it is easy to check if an ic is fairly accurate. (Mine are not shielded so of limited use in other systems.) In a small room, it may be necessary to limit the bass response/modes. If worse comes to worse, a simple RC 6db filter network might be enough. Please make sure the caps and resistor is high quality, such as a Mundorf Supreme.
>>More info on parts and components.
>>All solid state and most tube amplifiers use electrolytic capacitors. An electrolytic capacitor has a DA of around 5. Many electrolytic capacitors are used in solid state amplifiers with their many stages. A few, lower ufd values in tubes.
>>The DA of a good polypropylene capacitor is around 0.02, or 250 times less Dielectric Absorption effect.
>>The ESR of an electrolytic capacitor is many times higher than a good poly cap.
>>Electrolytic capacitors are very temperature sensitive (see graph below), and the
ufd lowers as the frequency increases, both of which affects musical accuracy.
Polys are many times better in both respects .
>>Below are graphs of typical electrolytic capacitors and Poly type capacitors to show
some of the differences which affects musical qualities.
>>With the electrolytic capacitor graph #8. The horizontal X line is temperature, the vertical line Y is uf change, or percentage lost. That change affects the music accuracy.
>>Notice the electrolytic capacitors start curving near the bottom and rise in the 500 hz range. That is the inductance causing the change in reactance, ESL, starting its dirty work and continuing into the most sensitive area of human hearing on up. Electrolytic capacitors also degrade the dynamics.
>>Figure #9, X line is frequency and Y line is ohms. The poly type capacitors sharply decrease until the hundreds of thousands of hz. That vs 500hz. What an immense difference. (Fig. 8,9 from Picking Capacitors by Walter Jung and Richard Marsh.)
>>While their may be 3-5 tubes in an amp, a SS amp can have a dozen transistors or more. There is much more
than harmonic distortion to consider.
>>Solid state devices all have leakage properties. A 1N914/1N4148, with 1pf capacitance, good for multiple millions of hz will bleed audio through even when biased off. Same with larger devices since there are physical connections vs vacuum between elements of a vacuum tube.
>>Anyone who has performed any testing at all understands how electrolytic capacitors, solid materials negatively affect musical quality in both solid state and tube components. It has been known for decades, with RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook (26 engineers+) addressing the subjects like capacitors etc.
Now we are to believe in magic that musical playback degradation is only minor and not needed in voicing a system.
Cheers
steve
-
After 50+ years listening to different systems, combo's individual components added to a system I get it. An Engineers approach to reproduction relies on a circuit design and measurements. Great. However not the end all in sonics Gee all would need is a 1970,s Receiver with .0000007% distortion. We know how those worked out.
Nelson Pass and CJ both have stated the sound they got was from voicing gear with different parts NOT the circuit design. So I leave it to them. Listen to their designs and go from there.
charles
-
I think Steve, being an electrical engineer, is voicing his system with an oscilloscope rather than using his ears.
I mean no slight here, I find many people with these technical backgrounds see music in terms of electrons and measurements, hence all the stories about cables making no sonic differences.
When audiophiles talk about synergy they are indeed talking about matching components, a warm amp with lean speakers...
>> I wonder what the public thinks when they read such misleading statements? I have posted over and over, on this string and other strings that my tests are specialized listening tests. Do you understand what a listening test
is Top? It is not simply installing a component in your system for audition, but much more rigerous.
Of course you really can't measure a warm or lean amp to show these attributes but you can hear them.
>>Ever wonder why this forum is not growing? Just look at the misleading posts in this last page, that I have had
to correct concerning my views.
Some like to use wire with gain, as the supreme example of a preamp. I don't believe it is correct. We use our preamps for much more than a selector switch and volume control. Preamps add to the voicing of a system, and preamps have a sound.
>>If you wish to artifically flavor your music, be my guest. But you still have to voice the electronics in your system.
What about the amp/speaker relationship, surely different amps sound different on the same speaker we all know this, and I'm not talking about using 300B's for Maggies.
>>Hal doesn't believe you have to voice the electronics at all, which includes the amp.
I think when we talk about putting a system together we are actually talking about creating a synergistic relationship between all the components, at least that is what we are trying to do with the available money and gear we have access to.
How many times have been to shows where rooms were put together haphazardly and synergy was at a loss and we could tell.
>>I agree. Voicing includes using the electronics in our systems. Synergy is a relative term. How close does one
want the synergy to be? The fewer faults of components the better the synergy. Or maybe one wishes a huge this
or that to their liking. It all involves using the electronics when voicing.
I have heard Steves preamp, it reminded me of a cleaner leaner Audible Illusions modulus 3, his preamp coupled with the right amp could be a very nice match for the right speaker. In fact if we had an unlimited amount of gear to play with I think many synergized systems could come out of all the possibles combinations. Add in cables and things get even more complex.
Cables are a sort of cheat, a way to cheat a system that needs some help with synergy and push into a synergized mode.
>>That is why one has to consider each component. The 10A, or 11A preamplifier is accurate in absolute terms, the output sounds exactly like the input. Any change in the musical quality will be from outside the 10A or 11A. One
has reduced the number of confound variables you have to deal with.
Since most people do not have oscilloscopes nor know how to use one, we just end up using our ears and our ears are far more sensitive than a scope at analyzing music reproduction
>>If you want to express what I have repeatedly stated, be my guest. But misleading the public hurts the forums reputation.
>>cheers
-
This is my oscilloscope
Right on EJK. That is exactly what we should be using. I know my testing is always listening tests,
using the ear as the final judge when checking for sonic differences that a component creates and
then correcting the fault(s).
Thanks for posting EJK.
steve
-
@steve
Kindly do not misquote me. You just wrote ">>Hal doesn't believe you have to voice the electronics at all, which includes the amp"
I'm going to remain "kind" towards you, but only for so long. I've been messaged privately from folks on this forum having to do specifically with you and it didn't shed light on anything that I hadn't already surmised just by reading your posts. But if you are going to continue to intentionally misrepresent and misquote me in particular by name, then I am going to be private messaging moderators to ask that you be banned from this forum on the basis of intentionally lying, and promotion of defamation of character.
Thank you.
Hal
p.s. so you and others should be perfectly clear, and as I repeatedly agreed, an amplifier or any piece of electronics *does* have impact on the "voicing" of a system. However, if you look/read back on *all* of my posts here in this thread, you'll notice as to where I place that on the pecking order. It's very very far down after many other things. So yes, it matters. But in the grand scheme of things it matters like toenail fungus matters to the health of your entire body.
Best.
Hal
-
hal/rich,
sorry if i misquoted you, but i thought your association with danville signal, and your monolith speakers w/the dspNexus 2x8 DSP crossover indicated the use of dsp. (and didn't you help rim, in no-va, with his system, using dsp?) maybe i was mistaken, regarding what this is all about...
https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8448.0 (https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8448.0)
and, i agree w/what you said, re: the recording process, which is the front half of the chain to get reproduced sound in the listening room. and which i mentioned previously. as well as the back half - the playback chain, and how you/your ears hear what's coming out of that.
doug s.
@doug s.
Hi Doug. I'd just like to add a little clarification to some things you wrote in your last post, addressed to @Steve.
First I am *not* using any kind of DSP to do "voicing" of my system. Secondly, what I was referring to regarding sound being compromised is that the artifacts and imperfections occur right at the beginning of the recording process as no recording process is 100% perfect as far as capturing every single nuance that's possible to capture, relative to your personal attendance at a particular venue and seeing and listening with your own eyes/ears. Thereafter, what I'm stating is that *nothing* can be done in the playback of anything already recorded that can "correct any imperfection". This is also the reason that I've stated, numerous times, that after one's own hearing acuity capabilities, the next most dominant Factor that's going to influence Sonic quality is the recording itself. But in no way have I ever stated that a recording can be absolutely perfect. Very close to perfect, yes.
"If this ain't the real thing, then it's close enough to pretend" - saint of circumstance - Grateful Dead
Wrong HAL... we have two with close monikers...
-
I noted this a while back that there is a user on this forum with the username of "hal", while my username is "gdhal". To further complicate matters the two avatars are essentially the same, taken from the HAL 9000 computer icon used in the movie "2001 : a space Odyssey".
I will change my avatar in the near future to help avoid any further confusion.
Best
Hal
-
@doug s.
Hi Doug. No apology necessary from you as you are not the one misquoting me. Rather, it is @Steve who is misquoting me, so the apology should come from him.
Best.
Hal
-
@doug s
Thank you. :)
Yes you are correct about the DSP in the Triton reference, which I'm very well aware of.
My previous reference to *my* not using DSP in the system as far as "voicing" is concerned (and hence "philosophy" to remain true to this threads topic) is rather specific to "me". DSP, or any technology used by a manufacturer in any of the components or room treatments that I have is part of *their* philosophy to voicing a system. 8)
Best.
Hal
EDIT: fun fact for those unaware, I am the first person in the world (literally) to take delivery as a customer of the Triton Reference speakers. They are most extraordinary, I must say. 8)
-
Steve I am not misleading the public, every audiophile worth his salt knows what I am talking about.
I am not using this forum to sell gear or talk about how great my gear is......
People in the Rave group were exposed to tons of gear and the nature of the rave was to experiment and drink... :beer:
The topic is what is your philosophy for voicing a system, not sure its really considered a philosophy but more a system used to attain the results one wishes. To be honest the only system we have to do this is to try different gear, and the only tool we REALLY use is our ears.
If you hear your system and you don't like it but a friend or oscilloscope tells you its great, but you still don't like it
what do you do? Sell everything and start a new hobby?
No, we ourselves know full well what we like, stats and figures are used to try and sell stuff , that's it....
and YES we do use our preamp to color(voice) our systems, otherwise we'd just use passive volume controls. Have you ever used one? Sometimes they can work great in a system and sometimes they suck the life out it. Clean yes, but stripped of emotion they can be, so we fill it up with our delicious 6sn7's that impart such beauty when rendered correctly.
Am I biased? Of course, everyone is biased in the direction they like. You're biased in speaking about how well your gear measures, why? To sell it! We get it. But no one voices a system by electrical measurements but only by their ears.
I think if people would stop thinking in terms of measurements and just used their ears the hobby might grow,(nah)
When you say your preamp imparts no sonic change to the original, that's a sales pitch, of course it does, a signal going through wire and caps and resistors and tubes has no change? Then why add the piece to the system, it does nothing then become an expensive volume control, a $10 alps at that. I say nonsense and you should know better.
Sorry to be a pain in the ass but we are all experienced audiophiles, why do we act like we are new at this?
Steve , you don't know me, I am a pain in the ass and will eventually get banned, but I am speaking honestly and I hope this site is not censored like Audio Circle and that free speech is allowed.
-
i bet those triton ref's are special - i've read great things about them, as well as the models directly below them. over-achievers at their price points. and, they have dsp low end! :mrgreen: so, technically speaking, you're voicing your system w/dsp, even if you're not the hal i thought you were - as you've chosen a mfr's product that uses it! but no complaints from me, i think dsp is a fabulous tool for audio playback. results matter.
btw, if you'd let me have access to a few of your downloads, i'd be greatly appreciative. unfortunately, i have nothing to trade. i lost touch with my deadhead college buddies a long time ago. ;)
doug s.
@doug s
Thank you. :)
Yes you are correct about the DSP in the Triton reference, which I'm very well aware of.
My previous reference to *my* not using DSP in the system as far as "voicing" is concerned (and hence "philosophy" to remain true to this threads topic) is rather specific to "me". DSP, or any technology used by a manufacturer in any of the components or room treatments that I have is part of *their* philosophy to voicing a system. 8)
Best.
Hal
EDIT: fun fact for those unaware, I am the first person in the world (literally) to take delivery as a customer of the Triton Reference speakers. They are most extraordinary, I must say. 8)
Hi Doug. Sure. Kindly visit the website in my signature line and let me know what you're interested in.
You can contact me off-board at the email address listed in my site, so we don't abuse straying off thread topic.
Best
Hal
-
Hi Hal,
I never misquoted you at all.
You have been given every opportunity to simply state you believe in voicing electronics,
even if a lower pecking order. You have continued to refuse for page after page. Such is
just as potent as actual words.
Finally, you finally revert back to your page 2 post #27, which claims that one can use
"objective measurements", a common engineering term meaning specs, scopes, meters,
distortion analyzers. Being a computer scientists, and not an engineer, maybe you don't
understand such terms? But that is what was written and understood.
I claimed in post #28 that electronics needed to be voiced, with given reasons.
If you had agreed and wanted electronics to be voiced, as you now claim, you could have simply
replied in the affirmative in your next posts #33 or #34? The discussion would have been over at
that point. But you refused, and just the opposite. Are not you saying we essentially agree?
At least we both agreed that a live event is best.
See your post #33.
"And I agree with you, (paraphrasing) a live event is best."
Are you are now willing to agree that electronics should be voiced, a simple affirmative reply should suffice to
end the discussion.
Cheers
steve
-
Hi Hal,
I never misquoted you at all.
I claimed in post #28 that electronics needed to be voiced, with given reasons.
If you had agreed and wanted electronics to be voiced, as you now claim, you could have simply
replied in the affirmative in your next posts #33 or #34? The discussion would have been over at
that point. But you did not, but just the opposite.
At least we both agreed that a live event is best.
See your post #33.
"And I agree with you, (paraphrasing) a live event is best."
If you are now willing to agree that electronics should be voiced, a simple affirmative reply should suffice to
end the discussion.
Cheers
steve
Steve, you have no idea what you're talking/writing about. Reply number 28, December 04, 2022, 08:48:54 PM was posted by me, not you. For your convenience I'll provide the direct URL https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8576.msg106549#msg106549 (https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8576.msg106549#msg106549)
In that post I wrote (excerpt):
5 - the topology of ones system. This includes whether it's analog , digital , solid state, tube or a combination hybrid of those . Also can include objective measurements data.
What do you think I mean by that if not an amp, and other electronics? Not that I care what you think, mind you.
With regard to your incorrect statement (reply 82) that "I never misquoted you at all", I refer you to post number 69, by you, today at 12:38:49 PM in which you wrote (keep in mind your posts are at times difficult to decipher because your not bounding other peoples quotes within the proper html tag. Your replies are preceded with ">>")
The following is what *you* wrote, which is nothing short of a lie if you in fact are referring to me. I have since changed my avatar, as another user on this forum has the username "hal". Note my username, "gdhal". I did this a few hours ago, thinking the two "hal's" on this forum with nearly identical avatar's (at the time) could cause "confusion". So that aspect should now be rectified.
You wrote:
">>Hal doesn't believe you have to voice the electronics at all, which includes the amp."
Can you point me to the post reply number in which I wrote or even implied that? I'll answer that question for you. No, you cannot.
Best.
Hal
-
For those wondering, our original HAL is Rich Hollis aka Hollis Audio Labs
https://www.facebook.com/HollisAudioLabs/
Our new HAL is GDHAL and I’m assuming the GD is for Grateful Dead
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I somehow have a sudden strong urge to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey….
https://www.looper.com/163074/hal-in-2001-a-space-odyssey-explained/
-
For those wondering, our original HAL is Rich Hollis aka Hollis Audio Labs
https://www.facebook.com/HollisAudioLabs/
Our new HAL is GDHAL and I’m assuming the GD is for Grateful Dead
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I somehow have a sudden strong urge to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey….
https://www.looper.com/163074/hal-in-2001-a-space-odyssey-explained/
Hi Nick. You're correct that the "GD" portion of my username is meant to indicate "Grateful Dead". The "HAL" portion of my username is my actual, legal, etc. birth name.
And you're correct that the avatar I originally was using is from the movie 2001 A space Odyssey. This is the avatar the fellow from Hollis Audio Labs is using, and he probably chose the avatar before I did. Although I note that his initial registration date and mine on this forum are rather close together. So who knows/cares? :)
I kind of like the new animated avatar I've now chosen for myself anyway. 8)
-
Steve I am not misleading the public, every audiophile worth his salt knows what I am talking about.
I am not using this forum to sell gear or talk about how great my gear is......
People in the Rave group were exposed to tons of gear and the nature of the rave was to experiment and drink... :beer:
>>I am not either, as I have mentioned former competitors trying to help to improve one's system. It is not about
you, your buddies or beer, it is about helping the public.
The topic is what is your philosophy for voicing a system, not sure its really considered a philosophy but more a system used to attain the results one wishes. To be honest the only system we have to do this is to try different gear, and the only tool we REALLY use is our ears.
>>Unfortunately, that is true. But try running the preamplifier and then bypassing it to see how the pre alters the
sound. Make sure the volume stays constant if you can. Both digital and analog vol controls do have drawbacks, but
experiment if you can and check how the sonics compare with each.
>>Top, if you want to test an interconnect cable, the closest way, although not perfect, is to try this. Say, between
source and preamplifier since you have a selector switch in the pre.
1. Connect the ics under test from source output to preamp input. Let's say dac output to preamp tuner input
for ease of understanding.
2. Now connect the same type wires X, as used in the ics, from the source jack output via the solder connections.
So one wire is soldered to the jack ground, and the other wire is soldered to the jack center pin. Of course both channels.
3. Now solder the other ends of X wires to the preamplifier input "tape".
Play both selector positions for an hour or two, and the next day compare by switching the selector switch
from "tuner" to "tape" and visa versa. If you want to be critical, time
each selection switch position. Do it for just a couple of times in a row, several times a day.
If you really want to get technical, use reg copper wire, silver, and 6N pure copper wire and compare. Try changing plugs from typical cheap to "all copper". Should be interesting results. Any deeper and one needs a specialty
setups.
If you hear your system and you don't like it but a friend or oscilloscope tells you its great, but you still don't like it
what do you do? Sell everything and start a new hobby?
No, we ourselves know full well what we like, stats and figures are used to try and sell stuff , that's it....
>>I never use stats or figures or scopes unless servicing or upgrading a piece of gear. I would assume the shills do though. That and clever marketing tools/claims etc.
and YES we do use our preamp to color(voice) our systems, otherwise we'd just use passive volume controls. Have you ever used one? Sometimes they can work great in a system and sometimes they suck the life out it. Clean yes, but stripped of emotion they can be, so we fill it up with our delicious 6sn7's that impart such beauty when rendered correctly.
>>Nope as my 11A has been found flawless so far. And I am down one part in a million on speaker crossover resistance between woofer and full range driver, 3/16" of one turn on a 14hy inductor/choke, 0.5mm speaker
rotation, 6 feet of 18 gauge, 10 parallel speaker wires as 11/10 or 9/10 parallel wires does not voice as natural/accurate. What all that means is there is virtually no masking as I am in the realm of -114 to -120db down.
I know what I am doing is a gigantic lab experiment that virtually no one else has performed, so considerations
are different. But some things should be helpful.
"Am I biased? Of course, everyone is biased in the direction they like. You're biased in speaking about how well your gear measures, why? To sell it! We get it. But no one voices a system by electrical measurements but only by their ears."
>>I have never said anything about specs that I can recall. However, as above, I mention those figures because
they correlate correctly, meaning they demonstrate virtually no masking, which is important for retrieving true inner detail. Some/many use distortion as perceived inner detail.
I think if people would stop thinking in terms of measurements and just used their ears the hobby might grow,(nah)
When you say your preamp imparts no sonic change to the original, that's a sales pitch, of course it does, a signal going through wire and caps and resistors and tubes has no change? Then why add the piece to the system, it does nothing then become an expensive volume control, a $10 alps at that. I say nonsense and you should know better.
>>That is right Top. The 11A does not impart a sonic change to the original input signal in any way. Why?
Because I don't follow the capacitor comparisons, I check myself for accuracy. Because I check resistors for
accuracy, the design has to be right. Total filter caps have to be within less than 1%. The correct wire has to
be used, the correct solder, the correct layout as well for excellent channel separation. A few equations won't
render an excellent component.
>>A passive volume control have problems which either influences the bass, highs, improper parts in a
negative way, or all together. Wire is not wire. 6N copper does not "sound" like cheap hardware store wire, 3N.
Secondly, does the amp have enough gain by itself? Integrates amps have gain, but don't have the proper power supplies with proper filtering stages. How many use electrolytic capacitors as decoupling caps? And we have
not begun discussing proper circuitry for real accuracy. There are no few equations that solve designing a component.
It takes R&D after college, physics helps as well.
Tell me Top, how many use inductors/chokes in their tube amp power supplies. That will tell you right away if
the designer understands the basics of what he is doing.
Sorry to be a pain in the ass but we are all experienced audiophiles, why do we act like we are new at this?
>>Because you have been taken for a ride at different forums, by marketers and other proclaiming science who as
Jneutron once stated could not design themselves out of a wet paper bag.
J worked at FermiLab, CERN, Brookhaven National Lab, and Argon National Lab. He was one who helped get CERN up and running after it blew up, and professors other scientists. Pretty smart gent.
Steve , you don't know me, I am a pain in the ass and will eventually get banned, but I am speaking honestly and I hope this site is not censored like Audio Circle and that free speech is allowed.
Don't worry Top. You are good with me. I sometimes get honery. :-P
-
To make things simpler, I decided to post my response here. It is short and to the point.
The screen shots of posts #28 and #69 are at the bottom of this post for your inspection.
"Steve, you have no idea what you're talking/writing about. Reply number 28, December 04, 2022, 08:48:54 PM was posted by me, not you. For your convenience I'll provide the direct URL https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8576.msg106549#msg106549 (https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8576.msg106549#msg106549)"
>>Check page 2 of this string folks, it says this.
Steve: Reply #28 on: December 07, 2022, 09:38:11 AM »
He is three days off on his date.
"With regard to your incorrect statement (reply 82) that "I never misquoted you at all", I refer you to post number 69, by you, today at 12:38:49 PM in which you wrote (keep in mind your posts are at times difficult to decipher because your not bounding other peoples quotes within the proper html tag. Your replies are preceded with ">>")
>>Please check attached screenshot of post #69 from me addressing EJK at bottom of this reply for your convenience.
I never addressed gdhal in that post.
>>The rest of his response is of no consequence. Hal is still able to simply state that voicing instruments is
valuable if he wishes to.
>>Addition, 12-12: When he mentioned one can use "objective data", that is an engineering term meaning specs,
scopes, meters, distortion analyzers.
>>Why he simply did not state right after I posted #28, that he felt the same way but of lesser importance
is an interesting question. He could have used that premise to end the discussion. That simple.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added 12-12: Deleted the rest of his post.
-
Enough about your 10 A or 11 A being perfect what are we children?
Who would make such a claim.....? insanity...
If your 10A or 11A was so perfect why do we not see so many people loving it or buying it.
Cmon be realistic.
It was a simple circuit built in your kitchen in a simple chassis with so so workmanship.
No one is perfect and no thing is perfect
a little humility shows you are human and a serious person
and they have medicine for Aspergers...this I know well....
I'm done with this topic its become silly
mike
-
@TopRound
I agree. Topic has become silly and I too am done.
@Steve
Thanks for the photos. I've attached one of my own. You'll note that what you posted as post 28 for you, is post 29 for me. This is rather strange and something for the moderators and/or site admins to weigh in on, look into, explain, etc.
-
Enough about your 10 A or 11 A being perfect what are we children?
Who would make such a claim.....? insanity...
If your 10A or 11A was so perfect why do we not see so many people loving it or buying it.
Cmon be realistic.
It was a simple circuit built in your kitchen in a simple chassis with so so workmanship.
No one is perfect and no thing is perfect
a little humility shows you are human and a serious person
and they have medicine for Aspergers...this I know well....
I'm done with this topic its become silly
mike
Mike, we have all been here. These things grow tiresome and suck the joy out of this forum. Unfortunately, new members with opinions seem to get subjected to the rite of initiation, one way or another. It is the same old "you're dumb and I'm not" pedantic criticism.
Gets old. :(
-
From P.I.
Mike, we have all been here. These things grow tiresome and suck the joy out of this forum. Unfortunately, new members with opinions seem to get subjected to the rite of initiation, one way or another. It is the same old "you're dumb and I'm not" pedantic criticism.
Gets old. :(
--------------
Actually, from my perspective - and I think all members have already deduced I am *not* a "newbie" to audio, as well as public forums - I don't mind so much the "you're dumb and I'm not pedantic criticism". Instead, and what I do mind, is any intentional dissemination of inaccurate information, innuendos directed at a particular member, and blatant lying, knowingly or unknowingly.
My idea of participating in this forum is tantamount to listening to new (to me) live recordings. Most of it goes in one ear and out the other. However, once in a while I'll come across a true gem of music, or in the case of this forum, information, that makes it worthwhile.
I'll add that I have a rather peculiar sense of humor. Many times I read posts that literally have me belly aching on the floor with laughter. Which I view as a good thing.
"I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe, But at least I'm enjoying the ride, at least I'll enjoy the ride." - Hell in a Bucket - Grateful Dead
-
Steve I am not misleading the public, every audiophile worth his salt knows what I am talking about.
I am not using this forum to sell gear or talk about how great my gear is......
People in the Rave group were exposed to tons of gear and the nature of the rave was to experiment and drink... :beer:
The topic is what is your philosophy for voicing a system, not sure its really considered a philosophy but more a system used to attain the results one wishes. To be honest the only system we have to do this is to try different gear, and the only tool we REALLY use is our ears.
If you hear your system and you don't like it but a friend or oscilloscope tells you its great, but you still don't like it
what do you do? Sell everything and start a new hobby?
No, we ourselves know full well what we like, stats and figures are used to try and sell stuff , that's it....
and YES we do use our preamp to color(voice) our systems, otherwise we'd just use passive volume controls. Have you ever used one? Sometimes they can work great in a system and sometimes they suck the life out it. Clean yes, but stripped of emotion they can be, so we fill it up with our delicious 6sn7's that impart such beauty when rendered correctly.
Am I biased? Of course, everyone is biased in the direction they like. You're biased in speaking about how well your gear measures, why? To sell it! We get it. But no one voices a system by electrical measurements but only by their ears.
I think if people would stop thinking in terms of measurements and just used their ears the hobby might grow,(nah)
When you say your preamp imparts no sonic change to the original, that's a sales pitch, of course it does, a signal going through wire and caps and resistors and tubes has no change? Then why add the piece to the system, it does nothing then become an expensive volume control, a $10 alps at that. I say nonsense and you should know better.
Sorry to be a pain in the ass but we are all experienced audiophiles, why do we act like we are new at this?
Steve , you don't know me, I am a pain in the ass and will eventually get banned, but I am speaking honestly and I hope this site is not censored like Audio Circle and that free speech is allowed.
You are just fine Mike.
charles
-
@steve
Kindly do not misquote me. You just wrote ">>Hal doesn't believe you have to voice the electronics at all, which includes the amp"
I'm going to remain "kind" towards you, but only for so long. I've been messaged privately from folks on this forum having to do specifically with you and it didn't shed light on anything that I hadn't already surmised just by reading your posts. But if you are going to continue to intentionally misrepresent and misquote me in particular by name, then I am going to be private messaging moderators to ask that you be banned from this forum on the basis of intentionally lying, and promotion of defamation of character.
Thank you.
Hal
p.s. so you and others should be perfectly clear, and as I repeatedly agreed, an amplifier or any piece of electronics *does* have impact on the "voicing" of a system. However, if you look/read back on *all* of my posts here in this thread, you'll notice as to where I place that on the pecking order. It's very very far down after many other things. So yes, it matters. But in the grand scheme of things it matters like toenail fungus matters to the health of your entire body.
Best.
Hal
NO ONE GETS BANNED. We know how that works from the AudioSyndrome BS. We have no more Club. An Amp IMHO can have serious impact. The Amp/Speaker combo is a critical factor in synergy. Planars especially.
charles
-
@steve
Kindly do not misquote me. You just wrote ">>Hal doesn't believe you have to voice the electronics at all, which includes the amp"
I'm going to remain "kind" towards you, but only for so long. I've been messaged privately from folks on this forum having to do specifically with you and it didn't shed light on anything that I hadn't already surmised just by reading your posts. But if you are going to continue to intentionally misrepresent and misquote me in particular by name, then I am going to be private messaging moderators to ask that you be banned from this forum on the basis of intentionally lying, and promotion of defamation of character.
Thank you.
Hal
p.s. so you and others should be perfectly clear, and as I repeatedly agreed, an amplifier or any piece of electronics *does* have impact on the "voicing" of a system. However, if you look/read back on *all* of my posts here in this thread, you'll notice as to where I place that on the pecking order. It's very very far down after many other things. So yes, it matters. But in the grand scheme of things it matters like toenail fungus matters to the health of your entire body.
Best.
Hal
NO ONE GETS BANNED. We know how that works from the AudioSyndrome BS. We have no more Club. An Amp IMHO can have serious impact. The Amp/Speaker combo is a critical factor in synergy. Planars especially.
charles
Yes, Charles. An amp certainly can have a serious impact. AFTER the by far more serious impact that the following items have:
1 - your personal hearing acuity and distortion profile/preference
2 - the recording
3 - the room and environment
4- the speakers/transducers
NOW..... #5 the amp and other electronics.
Best.
Hal
-
You can have 1-4 covered. Yet the wrong Amp will still be an issue. Source is #1. Garbage in garbage out no matter anything else. Not using my 45 2W amp with many speakers under 98db.
charles
-
@steve
Kindly do not misquote me. You just wrote ">>Hal doesn't believe you have to voice the electronics at all, which includes the amp"
I'm going to remain "kind" towards you, but only for so long. I've been messaged privately from folks on this forum having to do specifically with you and it didn't shed light on anything that I hadn't already surmised just by reading your posts. But if you are going to continue to intentionally misrepresent and misquote me in particular by name, then I am going to be private messaging moderators to ask that you be banned from this forum on the basis of intentionally lying, and promotion of defamation of character.
Thank you.
Hal
p.s. so you and others should be perfectly clear, and as I repeatedly agreed, an amplifier or any piece of electronics *does* have impact on the "voicing" of a system. However, if you look/read back on *all* of my posts here in this thread, you'll notice as to where I place that on the pecking order. It's very very far down after many other things. So yes, it matters. But in the grand scheme of things it matters like toenail fungus matters to the health of your entire body.
Best.
Hal
NO ONE GETS BANNED. We know how that works from the AudioSyndrome BS. We have no more Club. An Amp IMHO can have serious impact. The Amp/Speaker combo is a critical factor in synergy. Planars especially.
charles
Yes, Charles. An amp certainly can have a serious impact. AFTER the by far more serious impact that the following items have:
1 - your personal hearing acuity and distortion profile/preference
2 - the recording
3 - the room and environment
4- the speakers/transducers
NOW..... #5 the amp and other electronics.
Best.
Hal
Hi gdhal,
I am glad you posted, and we agree voicing is good for electronics. That is science if performed
correctly.
And no, I never misquoted you, but used what you stated as well as what you did not state,
page after page omissions, and attacks. The initial clue, you could have resolved the issue
right after I posted my post #28, If you really wanted peace. Instead it was argue just like
on Stereophile forums in 2009 when a group attempted to take over the entire forum.
All eventually left, by whatever means.
Your attempt at using a targeted link was already tried by one, from that group.
My computer expert verified such. That is why I posted screen shots.
John Atkinson, others and myself (the same group on other forums with Jneutron (FermiLab, and CERN) all dealt
with that group. They were also caught falsifying graphs, false data (28 pages) to discredit a 5 year work by
Dr. Kunchur on perception.
At ~28 pages, the peer reviewed, 3 national medical organizations, various universities, even atomic energy
brilliant minds information backround was presented.
That group all left one way or another in disgrace. I actually have some of John's emails to X member
and X's replies, attempting to bribe him. Fortunately, John has credibility/character.
I realize that you are not an engineer, but a computer scientist/programmer, so I tried to be
descent to you.
Wow, it is just difficult to figure how post #28 became #29, truly magical?
cheers
steve
-
Hi steve.
Peace is something I already have, but remain open-minded to disseminate it wherever my mind my happen to roam.
I believe you and I "agree", fundamentally. Even we don't, we can "agree to disagree".
To your last statement "....but used what you stated as well as what you did not state, page after page omissions. " Please think about that some more and ask yourself if you think using what someone does *not* state is wise. I have good reason to believe (and know) you would lose in both the court of public opinion and court of law if it came down to it.
Side note is that it's not just post 28/29 that's in question. All of the reply numbers as indicated on this site are off (at least by 1 in this thread). This is why I state that moderators and/or admins would need to get involved, assuming they care to do so.
Best.
Hal
-
Well, it’s nice to have differing opinions, but maybe it’s best for a while that this thread takes a long nap 💤 💤
-
Well, it’s nice to have differing opinions, but maybe it’s best for a while that this thread takes a long nap 💤 💤
I agree. In other words Mike dont piss off any remaining members this forum has left. Other wise
-
Why cannot we just leave it be. People disagree so be it. Do not like it move on. Stop the Woke cancel crap. I find it stimulating and a fun read.
charles
-
Evan your right. I didn't mean to piss off any members but I think some are pissed off before I got on this one.
I will lay low
I like to stir the pot because you know whats at the bottom of the pot?
The truth
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
-
Evan your right. I didn't mean to piss off any members but I think some are pissed off before I got on this one.
I will lay low
I like to stir the pot because you know whats at the bottom of the pot?
The truth
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
I will lay low
No problem at all…
https://youtu.be/CtNb1dnEaSQ
-
Ok then… I know what I like- and that’s how I ‘voice’ my system. I will admit that I rarely go to live shows- I love classical music, but I’m generally not able to afford them either monetarily or time-wise- working two jobs on Long Island rarely affords me the time back and forth to the city…
I also love older jazz- but most of those guys are dead, so I just make do with CD’s, LP’s, or streaming. I can’t replicate them to live…
I also like rock- those shows I do go to occasionally, and for the most part, they universally sound like shit; way overamplified for whatever venue they are in. Even many vaunted venues- The Egg in Albany, Westbury Music Fair or whatever it’s called now, even Jones Beach- how can they mess that up? It’s outdoors and still amplified, distorted, and loud beyond belief.
So… I voice my system to the warmer side of reality as I know it, because that’s my preference, and also pick components that will comfortably play at + 100db levels. I say that because I rarely listen ‘critically’ in a sweet spot- my system is in my living room, and I just have it on when I’m home and want to ‘crank it’ and hear it wherever. I’ve got good enough equipment that the ‘sweet spot’ doesn’t disappoint when I’m in the mood for some critical listening.
Nth degree of anything is beyond my ken, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
My 30 watts…
-
Hi steve.
Peace is something I already have, but remain open-minded to disseminate it wherever my mind my happen to roam.
I believe you and I "agree", fundamentally. Even we don't, we can "agree to disagree".
To your last statement "....but used what you stated as well as what you did not state, page after page omissions. " Please think about that some more and ask yourself if you think using what someone does *not* state is wise. I have good reason to believe (and know) you would lose in both the court of public opinion and court of law if it came down to it.
Side note is that it's not just post 28/29 that's in question. All of the reply numbers as indicated on this site are off (at least by 1 in this thread). This is why I state that moderators and/or admins would need to get involved, assuming they care to do so.
Best.
Hal
Law was one of my minors gdhal, besides engineering, physics, math etc, etc,
so you are not intimidating anyone. I do sincerely feel sorry that you are hurting yourself.
I am glad you posted positive voicing electronics, and we were able to reach an agreement.
Cheers
steve
-
Hi steve.
Peace is something I already have, but remain open-minded to disseminate it wherever my mind my happen to roam.
I believe you and I "agree", fundamentally. Even we don't, we can "agree to disagree".
To your last statement "....but used what you stated as well as what you did not state, page after page omissions. " Please think about that some more and ask yourself if you think using what someone does *not* state is wise. I have good reason to believe (and know) you would lose in both the court of public opinion and court of law if it came down to it.
Side note is that it's not just post 28/29 that's in question. All of the reply numbers as indicated on this site are off (at least by 1 in this thread). This is why I state that moderators and/or admins would need to get involved, assuming they care to do so.
Best.
Hal
Law was one of my minors gdhal, besides engineering, physics, math, other elective courses etc,
so you are not intimidating anyone. I do sincerely feel sorry that you are hurting yourself.
I am glad you posted positive voicing electronics, and we were able to reach an agreement.
Cheers
steve
Steve, it is obvious you are intent on having the proverbial last word. I have no problem with that. If, as you state, law was one of your minors, then certainly you know I'm correct! No intimidation intended. Just relaying facts.
Best.
Hal
EDIT (minutes after initial post): side note and no obligation...could/would you provide the name of just one customer of yours (i.e. an individual that purchased one or more of your products) and who needed service, and received service, and was then satisfied. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do tell... Now, if on the other hand your gear was/is so great that it never needed any kind of servicing, please provide one character reference of a person who purchased one or more of your products and had an epiphany once he/she realized how *grate* the gear is AND how *grateful* they were to have come into your consciousness. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do tell..
-
Law was one of my minors gdhal, besides engineering, physics, math, other elective courses etc,
so you are not intimidating anyone. I do sincerely feel sorry that you are hurting yourself.
I am glad you posted positive voicing electronics, and we were able to reach an agreement.
Cheers
steve
[/quote]
Steve, it is obvious you are intent on having the proverbial last word. I have no problem with that. If, as you state, law was one of your minors, then certainly you know I'm correct! No intimidation intended. Just relaying facts.
Best.
Hal
EDIT (minutes after initial post): side note and no obligation...could/would you provide the name of just one customer of yours (i.e. an individual that purchased one or more of your products) and who needed service, and received service, and was then satisfied. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do tell... Now, if on the other hand your gear was/is so great that it never needed any kind of servicing, please provide one character reference of a person who purchased one or more of your products and had an epiphany once he/she realized how *grate* the gear is AND how *grateful* they were to have come into your consciousness. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do tell..
[/quote]
I was closing out with we agreed,
but you posted this past post with
your sarcasm at its finest gdhal.
I have a list of reviews on another string somewhere. Search and you shall find.
Catagories include Phd, Dr., Attorney, Professional reviewer who accept no advertising, teacher,
and a number of audiophiles who have tested my components.
Cheers
steve
-
Steve, I was literally in the middle of reading your last post - which initially was many paragraphs longer filled with names of folks, companies, more details etc - when you edited it down to just a few paragraphs.
That's fine.
All I read had to do with "reviewers" of some sort or another. I was curious if you have and would provide contact credentials (name, with either an email address or phone number) of someone who *purchased* your gear.
Thank you.
Best
Hal
-
Steve, I was literally in the middle of reading your last post - which initially was many paragraphs longer filled with names of folks, companies, more details etc - when you edited it down to just a few paragraphs.
That's fine.
All I read had to do with "reviewers" of some sort or another. I was curious if you have and would provide contact credentials (name, with either an email address or phone number) of someone who *purchased* your gear.
Thank you.
Best
Hal
I would have to receive their permission before giving names with email addresses out in public.
If you are still interested, I will post the reviews again. They really are good, decent, educated people.
Cheers and all the best.
steve
-
Hi Steve, I was wondering what you consider the best way of implementing a
volume control in a preamp or system as whole.
In my opinion this is unfortunately one of weakest points in an audio system
as well as being a necessary evil. The damage the volume control can do to the dynamic
life of the music and its negative effect on the size of the sound stage and 3 dimensionality
is a rather aggravating problem.
Scotty
-
I would have to receive their permission before giving names with email addresses out in public.
If you are still interested, I will post the reviews again. They really are good, decent, educated people.
Cheers and all the best.
steve
I'm not interested in a review coming from you, which albeit may be quoting someone else. I would be interested in communicating with a customer of yours. Customer in this context I define as someone who considers themself a customer, not someone who you consider a customer. This means someone who paid legal tender to you (at any price point).
To your point about having to receive said customer's permission to disseminate their contact data, that is definitely fair. It's also rather ethical of you, so on that basis that does lend some credibility to your moral character, IMO. To adequately address your point, I'll give you my email address (which is already in my profile). Kindly pass my email address to as many of your customers as you like and ask that they contact me. I don't imagine I'll be reading, let alone hearing after I then provide my number, from anyone.
Best.
Hal
houseofhal@juno.com
-
Good question Scotty. Hal I believe Audioreview.com and audioinsurgence did a review. I goggled it.
charles
-
Good question Scotty. Hal I believe Audioreview.com and audioinsurgence did a review. I goggled it.
charles
Thanks, Charles. IMO a "review" (often performed by a person whose been paid or given some incentive) is not the same thing as a "customer" (who has paid and hasn't been offered any incentive). Night and day difference.
-
I would have to receive their permission before giving names with email addresses out in public.
If you are still interested, I will post the reviews again. They really are good, decent, educated people.
Cheers and all the best.
steve
I'm not interested in a review coming from you, which albeit may be quoting someone else. I would be interested in communicating with a customer of yours. Customer in this context I define as someone who considers themself a customer, not someone who you consider a customer. This means someone who paid legal tender to you (at any price point).
To your point about having to receive said customer's permission to disseminate their contact data, that is definitely fair. It's also rather ethical of you, so on that basis that does lend some credibility to your moral character, IMO. To adequately address your point, I'll give you my email address (which is already in my profile). Kindly pass my email address to as many of your customers as you like and ask that they contact me. I don't imagine I'll be reading, let alone hearing after I then provide my number, from anyone.
Best.
Hal
houseofhal@juno.com
Just remember your 4 fingers pointing back at you gdhal.
However, right on this forum, new member introductions GJM.
https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=7095.msg105036#msg105036
cheers
steve
-
@steve
Tell you what to give you the benefit of the doubt seeing that you didn't do what I asked you to do I reached out to gjm with both my email and phone number let's see if he contacts me.
Also I've attached the photo of the four fingers you allude to, pointing back at me. Do you recognize them?
-
Good question Scotty. Hal I believe Audioreview.com and audioinsurgence did a review. I goggled it.
charles
Thanks, Charles. IMO a "review" (often performed by a person whose been paid or given some incentive) is not the same thing as a "customer" (who has paid and hasn't been offered any incentive). Night and day difference.
Just as an fyi, many moons ago…starting in the 90s I think… I used to subscribe to a publication called Bound for Sound written by Marty deWulf. Marty practiced law in Illinois as I recall. He did one or two reviews on the 10A and 11A preamps and that’s when I first heard of Steve and his products.
-
Good question Scotty. Hal I believe Audioreview.com and audioinsurgence did a review. I goggled it.
charles
Hi Charles,
I saw the audio insurgence review, it was part of X magazine getting back at me after they had ball peened
my test 10A line preamplifier because I would not sell it to them for $300.00.
This article is the second time, and there was a third time, as well as another rag for a year+ on AC forum,
By the way, the 11A is one chassis, not four chassis as the article falsely claims. How could they get that
wrong. The rest of the article is similar fiction, so I would not put too much faith in it.
On AC, I was setting up a group audition of the 11A in Milwaukee for the "next" week. I asked the group for no
"professional" reviewers, just a group of individuals. The audition was set up, and the very night before, the
author of this article emails me that he is a reviewer. I should have cancelled, but foolishly did not.
I just new the screw was coming.
When I arrived at the gents house, the audio room was not even finished. It was quite large, no furnishings
except a couch, hard walls and hardwood floors. No room treatments at all. The ic from preamplifier to amp
was some 25 feet or more long.
At 30pf per foot, a total of 750pf, close to a 0,001uf capacitor (uf terms might be easier to understand).
Try sticking that size capacitor across the output of your amplifier let alone a preamplifier and hear what
happens. It takes high current. Even 25pf/foot we are talking 625pf, or .000625uf.
Of course the day was a disaster, yet the author wrote this fictional article.
By the way, I never received another call from that way concerning my products.
Sometime before this, I had been to a shootout of 2 modified SS amps at Audio Jerry's house. I had brought
along my 10A line preamplifier. After supper, we replaced the Eastern Electric Minimax with NOS tubes with my 10A
using modern tubes. Jerry's system sounded pretty descent as is by the way.
There is a string, I believe started by Audio Jerry with Earlmarc etc on Audio Circle Forum. Tube section.
Anyway, you now know what happened behind the scenes that inspired the fictional article. All because I would
not sell my test 10A line preamplifier for $300.00 a few years earlier.
cheers
steve
-
@steve
Tell you what to give you the benefit of the doubt seeing that you didn't do what I asked you to do I reached out to gjm with both my email and phone number let's see if he contacts me.
Also I've attached the photo of the four fingers you allude to, pointing back at me. Do you recognize them?
The string is his so you can read and post to him, or pm him.
Cheers
steve
-
Good question Scotty. Hal I believe Audioreview.com and audioinsurgence did a review. I goggled it.
charles
Thanks, Charles. IMO a "review" (often performed by a person whose been paid or given some incentive) is not the same thing as a "customer" (who has paid and hasn't been offered any incentive). Night and day difference.
Just as an fyi, many moons ago…starting in the 90s I think… I used to subscribe to a publication called Bound for Sound written by Marty deWulf. Marty practiced law in Illinois as I recall. He did one or two reviews on the 10A and 11A preamps and that’s when I first heard of Steve and his products.
Yes, I remember you stating such before Nick. He wrote that article, Truth be Told, concerning
the corrupt state of audio. I might have that article somewhere.
For newbies.
BFS accepts no advertising.
Both Martin and Dr. Richard Weiner purchased the 11A as their reference line preamplifier.
Unfortunately, Martin has passed away and Dr. Weiner is still in Milwaukee the last I heard.
cheers
steve
-
@steve
Tell you what to give you the benefit of the doubt seeing that you didn't do what I asked you to do I reached out to gjm with both my email and phone number let's see if he contacts me.
Also I've attached the photo of the four fingers you allude to, pointing back at me. Do you recognize them?
He is right there in the string so you can read and post to him, or pm him.
Cheers
steve
I thought I made it clear, Steve. I've reached out with my contact credentials. That infers a private message.
Let's see if he responds.
Have you done what I've asked which is to provide my contact credentials to any of your customers? You know, those same people that you need to get permission from in order for you to provide me with their credentials.
Best.
Hal
-
Enough about your 10 A or 11 A being perfect what are we children?
Who would make such a claim.....? insanity...
If your 10A or 11A was so perfect why do we not see so many people loving it or buying it.
Cmon be realistic.
It was a simple circuit built in your kitchen in a simple chassis with so so workmanship.
No one is perfect and no thing is perfect
a little humility shows you are human and a serious person.....
True that. Not mentioning any names, but some people just think that their s##t don't stink.
-
@steve
Tell you what to give you the benefit of the doubt seeing that you didn't do what I asked you to do I reached out to gjm with both my email and phone number let's see if he contacts me.
Also I've attached the photo of the four fingers you allude to, pointing back at me. Do you recognize them?
He is right there in the string so you can read and post to him, or pm him.
Cheers
steve
I thought I made it clear, Steve. I've reached out with my contact credentials. That infers a private message.
Let's see if he responds.
Have you done what I've asked which is to provide my contact credentials to any of your customers? You know, those same people that you need to get permission from in order for you to provide me with their credentials.
Best.
Hal
"that you didn't do what I asked you to do."
I am not your underling, nor slave. And no with that deceptive attitude, I will not. Graham has made
himself public, is a customer, and I would not fault him for not responding to you.
Your attempt at demeaning me is truly remarkable, especially considering you are only a computer
programmer and not an engineer. Laughable indeed.
cheers
steve
-
Just as an fyi, many moons ago…starting in the 90s I think… I used to subscribe to a publication called Bound for Sound written by Marty deWulf. Marty practiced law in Illinois as I recall. He did one or two reviews on the 10A and 11A preamps and that’s when I first heard of Steve and his products.
Thank you, Nick.
Yet another FYI is that people who write a publication for audio gear typically are considered "reviewers" who are paid or otherwise compensated to produce a favorable review. Granted, that doesn't mean that my assertion occurs all the time, it's just a rule of thumb and frankly I believe it happens most of the time.
And while I could be mistaken, I think Doug s. , who's in the business and who's chimed in on this thread, has posted something exactly on par with what I've just stated.
Best
Hal
-
@steve
Tell you what to give you the benefit of the doubt seeing that you didn't do what I asked you to do I reached out to gjm with both my email and phone number let's see if he contacts me.
Also I've attached the photo of the four fingers you allude to, pointing back at me. Do you recognize them?
He is right there in the string so you can read and post to him, or pm him.
Cheers
steve
I thought I made it clear, Steve. I've reached out with my contact credentials. That infers a private message.
Let's see if he responds.
Have you done what I've asked which is to provide my contact credentials to any of your customers? You know, those same people that you need to get permission from in order for you to provide me with their credentials.
Best.
Hal
"that you didn't do what I asked you to do."
I am not your underling, nor slave. And no with that deceptive attitude, I will not. Graham has made
himself public, is a customer, and I would not fault him for not responding to you.
Your attempt at demeaning me is truly remarkable, especially considering you are only a computer
programmer and not an engineer. Laughable indeed.
cheers
steve
A computer programmer with significant experience in audio and knowing how a system is supposed to sound, hence voicing, again remaining on point with this topic.
I've attended hundreds of concerts and listen to thousands upon thousands of shows that I haven't attended. check my list...
You listen to but a few classical concerts and that becomes the basis for all things audio. Sorry just doesn't work that way.
Besides you forget the primary rationale for being in this let's call it hobby to begin with which is enjoyment of the music and that is a subjective element ...what one prefers to hear....
Do you know anything about the distortion and harmonics in terms of which harmonics are favorable and desirable and which ones are not?
You should . you're an "engineer" right?
-
.....
"that you didn't do what I asked you to do."
.......
Once again, your horrible habit (and illegal on the basis of defamation of character if in a court of law) of misquoting me is abundantly clear.
I wrote "Have you done what I've asked....?
As in the form of a question. Not a directive as your misquotation would have one believe.
Engineer maybe, proficient in the English language, definitely not.
Best.
Hal
-
It was a simple circuit built in your kitchen in a simple chassis with so so workmanship.
No one is perfect and no thing is perfect
a little humility shows you are human and a serious person.....
True that. Not mentioning any names, but some people just think that their s##t don't stink.
[/quote]
Interesting comments in an attempt to stop the sales of a manufacturer's products. (Fortunately I am
retired for 10 years.) This is typical of what happens in other forums and why they are dangerous.
Martin DeWulf's (criminal defense attorney) article "Truth be Told" explains much of what these gents are
doing.
By the way, the UltraVerve and come to mind Herron preamplifiers are extremely near perfect themselves
and I recommend them, and have before. So it can be done, both Topround and gdhal, by more than me. :D
I understand Top, you have attempted to learn from others on forums, but other companies have designed
extremely close to perfect products. It has been done for decades. No harm done.
I guess I should have known that a computer programmer would not have known
the 11A was to replace the flawed 10A.
Here are some review folks, from customers, tours, and group auditions that I did not attend.
BFS is Bound for Sound, who accept no advertising.
Martin DeWulf is editor, and criminal defense attorney
() for adding names etc.
All is quotes.
Graham: "I took the B11a into a shop in Auckland. I know the owner fairly well, and we agree that Shindo make some wonderful pieces of kit. (I wasn't looking for a change!) Almost immediately we started listening, he said "That's really fast!" We also agreed that the B11a was much clearer, making the Shindo Aurieges sound slow, muddy, and coloured."
Terence: "I have been using the 11A since I received it but I didn't want to be premature in my assassment, although my initial assessments were favourable. Now, I must say that the 11A is certainly the best preamp I have ever owned, and the best I have ever heard-ss or tube. Thank you for a wonderful product, Steve."
Charles Phd, does musical reviews for PBS, Florida: "I just saw this post and you know I have to chime in here. After three years of preamp auditions I just pulled the trigger on the SAS 11A preamp. It was an unknown product to me but Marty Dewulf over at BFS (and who knows whats going on there these days, by that I mean it seems that Marty has slipped into retirement - forgive me Marty if I am wrong) Anyway he always said wonderful things about the preamp! So having no mind of my own I bought the preamp from Steve at SAS audio. The reason I bought the preamp is that I did not want to do the crazy audiophile thing of always upgrading. Buying the SAS preamp was the best thing I could have done. It's wonderful! Clear, fast musical and very truthful to the source. And more importantly it works well with both tube and solid state amps (i.e. Pass 30.5 & Audio-space 300b mono-blocks).
Hey good listening
Charlie
PS I have no connection to Steve at SAS audio"
Bernie: "I have also tested the 11A in terms of comparing the sound from my excellent cd source directly to amps versus inserting the 11A pre between. I could detect no difference whatsoever.... So, my two cents: the SAS preamps are stellar – with my 11A I hear no compression or any other alteration of the originating signal."
George: "Steve,, this pre is "top shelf",, I currently have it thru odyssey mono se's to a pair of Carver Amazings,,, it's gonna be difficult for me to box it up and ship it on to Weez,,, organic, man,, organic,,, as soon as I receive the address, I'll ship it on,, I've got it "dialed in",,, it's so good,,it's scary---thanks for the opportunity to let me/us audition such a fine piece of gear---- george (George tested the 11A on tour.)
Charlie (a different Charlie than Phd): "Steve,The overwhelming Majority of comments regarding the 11A during the tour have been very favorable. Everyone at Woodsyi's with the exception of Doug S who seemed to have prior issues with you because of you refusing to offer the 10A with a remote volume thought that the 11A was by far the best sounding pre of the bunch. DaveG sat there with Scotty and myself and fully agreed that the 11A was clearly the superior preamplifier out of the group."
Rich (Audio Circle): "I've been listening to a lot of preamps this week and even with the problems, it is evident to me that the 11A is in a different league. I'm glad I heard it first, because it set a high mark for the others to follow. The only other pre that sounds naturally musical so far is the Minimax with vintage 12AU7s. They are just too tubey though. But at least the sound is natural and tone is not all screwed up. Manley Shrimp sounds like sandpaper and Van Alstine is like cheap hifi, with hyped treble and bass and weird honky mids. I guess that's what you can expect for 1500 bucks. Makes 10b look very tempting."
Thanks Steve.
Rich"
Ray: "your prees are somewhat legendary in their reviews."
Jack: "My 10A is going to the grave with me, it's my favorite piece of audio gear. The 11A is better but they rarely come up for sale." (Jack auditioned my 11A at his venue.)
Bob: "Hey guys. . .if anyone's interested, I'm selling my Tram 2 preamp since my SAS B11A is so awesome...." (Tram 2 uses 45, 2A3s)
(Dr.) Rich Weiner, Bound for Sound: "The SAS 10A is the most musically truthful preamp I'm aware of, and I will expand that statement by listing some of the line stages I've had in my otherwise very stable system: Herron VTSP-1, VAC CPA III, VAC Standard LE, Audio Research 3A, ARC 8, ARC 10, Mark Levinson ML-1, Levinson ML-7, Levinson ML-10A, Original Aronov PS-100 and Musical Concepts modification, Nagra PL-P, Beveridge RM-1, Rappaport, Placette Passive - there are more, but you get the point. Until I got the 10A, I struggled to make the other components live up to their potential."
Dr. Weiner purchased the 11A Line Preamplifier as their reference. March 2006)
(Martin DeWulf) Bound for Sound, Issue #163 SAS Audio 10A Triode Preamp is one of only 3 listed in "Exceptional Merit" catagory. "I expecially feel that way about the SAS 10A, a tube unit of moderate expense that simply stomps a mud hole in just about every active unit made - regardless of price."
(Martin purchased an 11A (~2005-6) as his reference line preamplifier until his death ~2 years ago.)
cheers
steve
-
Ok don't know how this thread got this way. I'm out. NICK B send me a PM when it's all done, and they have moved on. Steve has been a valued member here and I'm not sure who started this thread of insults but I'm pretty sure I have a good idea.
See Ya
-
hi hal,
......no, i'm not in the biz. just a hobbyist, maybe a bit more active than some; certainly not as active as many. ....
Apologies for my mistakenly believing you're in the audio business (as in trading your audio expertise for money and/or selling *anything* audio/video related).
I do believe my erroneous thinking that you're in the business dates back a while (6 years?) and originated from audiogon, not here on audionervosa, if that means anything or serves to clarify where I may have come into that belief.
Thank you for the clarification. :)
Also, thank you for the link to the magazine's site. I've since bookmarked it :D
-
>>I shall reply to your comments with >>.
A computer programmer with significant experience in audio and knowing how a system is supposed to sound, hence voicing, again remaining on point with this topic.
>>Being a computer programmer means nothing. You are not an electronics engineer, nor in the field at all.
You know nothing of electronics design, nor what is possible, yet you criticize what you don't understand.
You have no idea of how accurate my components are, yet criticize them out ignorance. Misleading is not
truthful gdhal.
I've attended hundreds of concerts and listen to thousands upon thousands of shows that I haven't attended. check my list...
>>Rock concerts, right, or classical. Like any stereo will reproduce such "accurately" for either.
James stated it quite well in his post, how poor quality rock concerts are. How about real orchestra concerts
with real fidelity gdhal. Do you understand that recordings vary in quality. By the way, I have attended concerts
even in Europe.
>>So which do you actually believe, live music, preferred quality, or by the specs. You have mentioned all three.
So which one you pushing now?
You listen to but a few classical concerts and that becomes the basis for all things audio. Sorry just doesn't work that way.
>>That is a point blank lie gdhal. I have attended concerts, even in Europe. I have mentioned the listening procedures I use when listening testing a component for accuracy to the source. That means what is recorded on the source is faithfully reproduced through the electronics. What audio systems are designed for. I also attend real concerts even in Europe. :D
Besides you forget the primary rationale for being in this let's call it hobby to begin with which is enjoyment of the music and that is a subjective element ...what one prefers to hear....
>>As you mentioned earlier, we agreed enjoying live music. So which is true, you love live, you love preferred
musical quality, or simply the specs, scope, meters measurements? You have mentioned all three on these pages.
So which is it gdhal?
Do you know anything about the distortion and harmonics in terms of which harmonics are favorable and desirable and which ones are not?
>>I suggest you read The Radiotron Designers Handbook, 26+ engineers describes the harmonics quite well.
I have a copy of the book.
By the way, most amplifiers use just a watt or two in playback at normal levels (higher percentage due to closer to
max power in flea power amps), so the harmonic distortion is quite low. When one gets really loud, the speaker itself introduces considerable distortion.
>>Cheers
steve
[/quote]
-
As I stated (cannot use reply numbers as they are shown to be inaccurate) December 12, 2022, 06:53:54 PM:
"Steve, it is obvious you are intent on having the proverbial last word. I have no problem with that."
To quote Bob Dylan,
It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe
If'n you don't know by now
And it ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe
It'll never do somehow
When your rooster crows at the break of dawn
Look out your window and I'll be gone
You're the reason I'm a-traveling on
But don't think twice, it's all right
Best.
Hal
-
I don’t want this to go on and I doubt any other members here want it to continue either. I’m therefore issuing a cease and desist order 🛑 ✋