System too bassy - Primaluna & Usher

11-10-13: Newbee
Al, FWI you can change modes on the fly without risk so A/B comparisons are easy.

Thanks, Newbee. Since the design of your amp has a lot of commonality with the design of the OP's, I'll defer to your comment.

Best regards,
-- Al

I've played a lot with the different modes since I've had the amp. I've always loved the triode mode. The linear mode does help the bass issues a bit. But not enough. I've used the triode mode as the benchmark for each tweak I've made so far (speaker positioning and bi wiring). I still check how it affects linear mode but my goal is to get to a happy place with triode. Plus since the bass issue is slightly worse in triode it was a better place to start notice improvements as my discernment skills are developing.

The other thing that has been changed before I made the biwire tweak is the tubes. They are now el34 wc (svetlana) compared to the stock Primaluna el34's. They came with my purchase of the amp so I'm not sure if they are broken in yet. I assumed they were but I should check into that because that would make things confusing ;). But I do know that the changes from biwiring were immediate and impressive regardless.

One thing that I toyed with before the biwiring was my itunes equalizer. It definitely reduced bloatness in the bass. I'm no expert, but it doesn't feel right to have all this effort and money in a hifi setup and only to lower frequency responses on an EQ which alters an artists intentions. As I heard "less bass" it was satisfying at first but then I realize that I've, in some cases, eliminated sounds of a piece so that it could be appropriate to my rig and environment. Is my thinking correct? Or is this what I'm essentially doing when I make tweaks to achieve my current goals? I think this gets into the philosophy of it all so would love your opinions on EQ.

11-10-13: Deetothevee
But I do know that the changes from biwiring were immediate and impressive ....

To be sure it's clear to others who may read this, as I see it the improvement was almost certainly due mainly to the use of different amplifier taps for the low and high frequency sections of the speaker (which in turn was made possible by biwiring), not to biwiring in itself.

One thing that I toyed with before the biwiring was my itunes equalizer. It definitely reduced bloatness in the bass. I'm no expert, but it doesn't feel right to have all this effort and money in a hifi setup and only to lower frequency responses on an EQ which alters an artists intentions. As I heard "less bass" it was satisfying at first but then I realize that I've, in some cases, eliminated sounds of a piece so that it could be appropriate to my rig and environment. Is my thinking correct? Or is this what I'm essentially doing when I make tweaks to achieve my current goals? I think this gets into the philosophy of it all so would love your opinions on EQ.

Good question. Unfortunately I don't think that there is a general purpose answer, as there are many variables involved. Including differences in the quality of the equalization function, and the fact that on many and perhaps most recordings the artist's intent is already compromised by less than optimal mic'ing, mixing, overprocessing, and generally poor engineering. And there usually tends to be a tradeoff between making the (sonically) best recordings sound their best, and making average recordings sound as good as possible.

Also, IMO/IME introducing equalization into the signal path, if it is not implemented to a very high standard, can easily have downsides (such as loss of clarity and definition) that outweigh the benefits.

FWIW, my own philosophy is that in general the less processing that is introduced into the signal path the better. And if that means that mediocre recordings are reproduced "warts and all," or that acoustic anomalies in the room or system can't be addressed in a convenient and inexpensive manner, so be it. Although I have an open (and intrigued) mind with respect to some of the relatively recent developments in DSP (digital signal processing)-based room correction products, such as the DSPeaker Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual Core (around $1100), and (at vastly higher price points) the Trinnov products.

IMO.

Best regards,
-- Al

So glad you caught my lack of clarity on what we really did with the wiring. I've never heard of or thought of putting 2 ground (-) wires in the 0ohm terminal. So your right, it's what we did with the wires that made the difference. I'm still thrilled about what we did. Unconventional, clever and resourceful. I didn't spend a dime (I had some extra cheap cable wire lying around) and I'm not adding any "tone control" tweaks like interconnects that are known for being "lean" (not that I'm against that, I'm still going to do that if it's still needed). I'd say that this tweak was the best one to make at this point, other then room acoustics. But even then, I can't think of any reason why I wouldn't want to properly allocate the amps ohm output.

In regards to EQ, I completely agree with Al. All of our ideals in the chain are just that - our made up ideals. The fact is that before we even decide on which song to play there have already been endless, less then ideal breaks in the "ideal" chain (ie the recording process). I played with the idea of trying to keep everything neutral for the sake of hi fi and all that. But I realized that who cares? It's your sound, your music. If you like boomy bass, work towards more boomy bass. If you like unnatural "sparkliness", then go for it. If you want to hear the recording completely as it is, then go for complete neutrality. For me, I'd rather enjoy (based on my personal tastes) my music that I enjoy, not dependant on how well the recording was. I have no control over how they recorded but I do have control over my setup and making it sound as I like.