I always find the path one has charted in this hobby (as well as the associated knowledge and relationships) to be illuminating. Agreed. The "journey" is typically shockingly haphazard and fickle despite the measured, anal retentive, retrospective analysis that gets thrown around on these threads. We are not the captains of our own audio ships. If I had snagged the Kronzilla or Solista, I would probably be flapping my gums on another thread about how it was the answer to everyone's prayers....lol. I am curious about the NCore from Hypex
read one of their white papers and, although over my head technically, was interesting nonetheless. There seems to be enthusiasm, if not true potential, in the class D approach. Consider me a casually interested bystander at the moment though. Color me an interested bystander as well. The specs are stunning. It "appears" as if class D has arrived. If you follow the US tour thread on AC, there is a lot of enthusiasm, but time will tell. I am skeptical due to my past experiments with class D (Hypex, classD, etc) on high efficiency speakers (Emerald Physics). It sounded pristine but the soundstage was slightly flat and cardboard sounding. That was even with a tubed pre-amp. You find that many class D devotees stress the need to a tubed pre-amp. I would be very interested to hear how the NCOREs did on the IVs or any Zu speakers for that matter. ....power and room issues being essential to get a good sound, after all it is the foundation (power) and enviroment (room acoustics) that the gear is constrained by. That is what I have bumbled into. I did an experiment with a Topaz isolation transformer, and the results, in a crappy, unfinished basement with no dedicated lines, etc were NOT subtle. I have read or been told that ITs can limit dynamics and can have a sound of their own. Here is a little blurb from Pure Powers website: "Q. Won't an isolation transformer make a new clean power supply?
A: Expensive isolation transformers can be used to create a new clean ground at the point of use and this will fix a common mode noise problem but at a high cost and a risk of dampening audio system dynamics. It will not correct voltage sags or spikes. It is better, and cheaper, to run new, uninterrupted wiring from the service entrance to a single isolated ground receptacle. This simple step will almost always be effective at cleaning up common mode noise that can cause hum." Spirit, since you know and like Clayton Shaw's offerings, have you thought about digital room correction? He offers that service (SpatialComputing.com). I believe it has a lot of potential merit in difficult rooms and real world settings. His viewpoint on the current direction and sound of(most) 'high end' components is near identical to my own thoughts formed over the past 20 years. So Charles, other than SETs being the shizzle, what specific elements of Phil's theology do you ascribe to? From what I surmise from some of his writings, room acoustics, power conditioning, and wire are a waste of time. Do you agree with that? Several older audiophiles and manufacturers I know whom I respect greatly share similar views. It almost appears to be a generational residue of sorts. |
Hello Arear,
1, I`m a true believer in the benefit of balanced AC power transformers. I`ve used the BPT3.5 SIG Plus for 4 years and as I`ve written elsewhere it provides an across the board improvement(yes,dynamics included) that is substantial.It`s permanent part of my system.
The room is an obvios major factor in regards to overall sound.I will admit I`ve not put in any effort to using room treatments as my room just has very good acoustics already(sheer luck?) people who have visited my home have all commented on the good sound quality. Could it be further improved? yes , but at this time I enjoy it and will leave well enough alone.
To be fair, I`m not read where phil has been dismissive of room effects,cables(he`s spoken highly of Zu cables and Auditorium for example). He`s also spoken positively about isolation transformers. He probably does`nt place the same degree of emphasis as you and priorities are likely in a different order.
I do prefer SET amplifiers but willing admit they all are`nt equal and their certanly is a pecking order. There are other alternatives in amplifier choice that can yield excellent results(I`ve never questioned that).Exception SET amplifiers just have worked out best for me and my desires .
Where I most agree with phil is the area of tonality,timbre and holistic attributes and their vital importance in presenting music 'natural' and convincingly.Much of the direction in the High End seems toward hyper detail and ultra clean low distortion. The result of this(strictly my humble opinion) is the sound becomes artificially lean, dry, sterile, 2-diminsional etc. The full body tone and harmonics are stripped away ( the complete note i.e.substain and decay is compromised)and the music will lose emotional involvement and sound canned.
When I listen to live acoustic music(mostly jazz)I`m always remined of the true fullness of the instruments and how strikingly beautiful they sound. There`s a natural flow and liquid quality(along with dynamic nuance and ease) that many componenets convert to a stiff or mechanical character(this is a major flaw). I want to preserve as much of that inate organic/holistic presence as I reasonably can.
Charles,
Regards, |
Sorry for the typos,meant innate not inate. |
Agear- let's be fair and highlight that the Alef gear starts at 60k an amp.
I think folks have to try amps in their system to judge them appropriately on the 4s. I've personally tried the Audions, Sophias, McIntoshes, Quads, FirstWatt, Vacs, etc. I tried to set up an ASR demo, but there is no Cali dealer and I don't want to pay hefty shipping charges from the NA distributor.
I can't definitely say one amp is best over the other--they are all quite different. I will say on the SET side, I preferred the Sophia sound to the Audions. But I preferred the P-P Quads to all the SETS I have tried.
I also don't like 845Bs one iota (and for 4 years now). The top end is incorrect in my opinion with that tube and it's rolled off. The Cryo'd 845A that 213Cobra mentioned is a much more linear option that doesn't have the glare of the Chinese original.
I also strongly believe in Room Acoustics and have a Rives L1 designed room- no component outside of speakers has made a larger improvement. Untrapped bass masks a lot of problems imo and that is another reason my amp journey may differ from others. |
Agear- let's be fair and highlight that the Alef gear starts at 60k an amp. That was in comparison to Wavac. Not exactly an Audiogon bargain hunters dream. ...believe in Room Acoustics and have a Rives L1 designed room- no component outside of speakers has made a larger improvement. Untrapped bass masks a lot of problems imo and that is another reason my amp journey may differ from others. Agreed. The room is your speaker. For me, stratifying things would go as follows: Room>power>speakers>amps>source>pre-amp>wire. I`m a true believer in the benefit of balanced AC power transformers. I`ve used the BPT3.5 SIG Plus for 4 years and as I`ve written elsewhere it provides an across the board improvement(yes,dynamics included) that is substantial.It`s permanent part of my system. I saw that you own the BPT. Nice unit. My speaker designer owns one and it has a positive influence on his system. Where I most agree with phil is the area of tonality,timbre and holistic attributes and their vital importance in presenting music 'natural' and convincingly. Much of the direction in the High End seems toward hyper detail and ultra clean low distortion. The result of this(strictly my humble opinion) is the sound becomes artificially lean, dry, sterile, 2-diminsional etc. The full body tone and harmonics are stripped away ( the complete note i.e.substain and decay is compromised)and the music will lose emotional involvement and sound canned. I agree wholeheartedly. The real question is what is the source of that phenomenon? Low distortion levels don't necessarily equal lean sound. If we all had 1/2" master tape, we probably we not be having this argument. Monkeying with the room and power can give you a more analog sound in my experience. Tubes also embellish poor source material whether it be CDs or Vinyl. That is a bonus IMO and why in real world applications, tube based amplification does make sense. There is less lunatic fringe, OCD audiophile behavior going on. As for Phil and his philosophy, I agree with much of his sentiments and I enjoy his acidic writings. For example, here is a blurb on room acoustics from the Asylum: I've never seen a mainstream living space I couldn't get satisfying sound from. This is the point. We've become so intolerant of compromised sound that we've made hi-fi arcane, irrelevant, anti-social and a perceived pathology in circles where once it was enjoyed.
It's our choice. Wormhole hobby or a musically-driven resurgent interest? I take a little bass spike and lower-treble glare at high SPL that I can't fully tune out of my room via normal furnishings, to drive for the latter. The first-time guest who once admonished me for having a coffee table in the living room with my stereo, and asked for its removal so could "hear properly" didn't get offered the glass of Pappy Van Winkle's 23 year old, nor invited back.
Phil and Well, I can't argue with a man who wants his own domain. But whether that's where the primary sound has to go, is another thing.
> > I would like a dedicated listening room that I can acoustically treat and furnish with only one purpose, the best quality sound and comfort of listening. < <
Over the last few decades I've visited many dedicated listening rooms, acoustically treated, optimized for listening. I never had any fun hearing music in any of them, and I couldn't see any evidence the owners did either. The problem is, no one hears music in an optimized space. Put pop, jazz, rock, blues, etc. aside for the moment. As a kid I had regular opportunity to hear Eugene Ormandy's Phildelphia Orchestra in the Academy of Music, a truly mediocre acoustic space. And yet my emotional connection to the music was no greater when I later was able to hear Seiji Ozawa's Boston Symphony in the peerless Symphony Hall. But having been in Symphony Hall dozens of times for concerts, I notice that recordings made there have never sound *less* like Symphony Hall than when played back in an acoustically-treated, dedicated listening room. Room tuning folks are quacks, if judged by the results. They know everything about how a room measures and nothing about how it sounds. It's like investment bankers or venture capitalists who know everything about money but nothing about the economy.
The very best sounding room I have ever heard a hi-fi installed in was in a century-old Victorian house in Arlington, Massachusetts. It had a large living room proportioned within maybe 10% of Symphony Hall's, with large bay windows on two walls, a wall of floor-to-ceiling shelving and cabinetry, and an outsized fireplace. The ceiling was smooth plaster with radiused corners and a full mahogany soffet perimeter. Absolutely nothing was done to "optimize" the room acoustically. It was, however, so good, nothing sounded bad. The owner would challenge us to bring over our worst trade-ins to find something that sounded bad. I'm now almost the age he was when he taunted us to defeat his room. Even a pair of horrific Cerwin Vegas powered by grating Phase Linear 400 and Southwest Technical Products preamp fed by dry-as-sandpaper Stanton cartridge in a pathetic Garrard Zero 100 sounded OK in that room. Even a 1979 boombox couldn't be denied. I've never heard even a acoustician-designed, computer-modeled, custom-built room sound remotely close to being as good as that room. But I've had some that I lived in come closer than I hoped upon first inspection, especially in open plan houses.
If someone builds their man-cave for whatever and they put a decent stereo in it, fine with me. But their *only* hi-fi? Well, if they ask my advice, I recommend against it. Think of the music you could buy. The time you could get back. Satisfaction in the acoustically-treated dedicated listening space is elusive, and more often than not, it seems to me synthetic -- a declared victory because, well, the money's already been spent.
People have fun in livelier settings and music is generally a shared experience when heard live. It used to be that way in homes too. Of course, you used to turn on the radio and hear Dean Martin, Sinatra, The Beatles, Motown and Philly soul on the same station. If hi-fi is going to be relevant again, it has to have something for everyone and that means removing the conditions that draw it inward to a solitary interest. Besides, what's the point of keeping the art of a McIntosh faceplate to yourself?
Phil
There is a lot to agree with in there particularly in regards to orchestral music. A bitch to get right in our audiodomes. I have also heard my share of mis-engineered rooms that sound like a mortuary. You can hear a pin drop but are left feeling a little dead inside. On the other hand, what I am "hearing" now is a much better and involving facsimile. Like Andy Murray said after the Wimbledon final: "I am getting closer." Question for Phil: do you have any addendums to add to your room philosophy in light of recent experience with Keith and panels, etc? |
