what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?

[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...

>> 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

[steve]

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

[GDHAL]

@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

[P.I.]

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

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...

[GDHAL]

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

[GDHAL]

@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

[GDHAL]

@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.   

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. 

[TopRound‎]

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...

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.

[GDHAL]

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! 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.   

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. 

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

[steve]

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

[GDHAL]

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

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

[Nick B]

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/

[GDHAL]

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. 

[steve]

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...

>>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. 

[steve]

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"

>>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.