Ultra high resolution


Hi folks, I suppose this is a question none could answer appropriately. How come that some (there are to my knowledge only two of them) amplifier brands are building such ultra high resolution solid state amplifiers without having a treble that sounds shrill or piercing or artificial? It is of course proprietary info if you ask those manufacturers.
Is it because of very tight selection of matched transistors? Is it because lack of global but high level of local feedback? Is it because of the use of very expensive military grade parts? Is it because of the power supply? Is it because of the application of special circuit design? Is it because all of the above?

Chris
dazzdax
Chris,

Yes, It does clarify what kind of treble and tonal balance we are all talking about. Sometime there is music content that is embedded in recording that just pops out either from way back or side with such a realistic tonal balance that you just say out loud wow and for a moment you wonder whether it came from somewhere around the house or outside or what?

Also other aspect of the disagreements here is as to how much details one prefers relates to which seating position (5th or 10th row- actual seating position near field or far field at home) perspective he or she prefers (like Mr T). Once you get HR system, I think it does not matter if you are 5 ft away. 10 ft away or up and around the house or how loud the system plays, you should get in general similar palatable and believable tonal balance and right details amount.
My preference (or have right now) is to have this (right tonal balance, harmonics and detail combo) at the level tad (extremely small) below what should be right in real life. I would rather have my mind fill-in/ make up for rest of the tiny amount. Weird reasoning I agree, but for me it works and thus more records/material becomes listen-able. I have 2 digital and 2 anaIog sources and this set up works great for large % of perm and combination. Although I have optimized my system for one Digital and one analog source in particular. I think it does not take very long (different recordings have different balance) to tilt the balance the other way so quick that it gets unrealistic so quick more often.

Okay I will get off my soapbox now.

I do ( and I think others) recognize what Chris is talking about.

Rodman99999, Thanks for the software recommendations.
Not an unreasonable question, but can I have some fun and give answers in three groups; System, Listening position and then Vinyl software no silver discs.

This is one system I can suggest; Wilson Maxx2, ASR Emitter II with battery option or Dartzeel electronics, Acustic Raven 3 motors, Dynavector DV 507II arm or others, Dynavector DV DRT XV1s or Clearaudio Goldfinger cartridge, 2nd arm Graham Phantom with Lyra Titian Mono or Dynavector DRT XV1s mono, Nordost Valhalla cables.

Listening position: 4-5 feet centered

You can delete amp and speakers and go to Stax Omega Series II Earspeakers

Software: Shefield Labs, M&K Direct Disc; Telarc; Many of these new 45's; Nonesuch percussion
Dave- If you play a lot of gigs, you can probably tell the difference between Zildjians and Sabians when listening to a good system. Likewise- Can probably appreciate a soundman that knows what a Les Paul(or Strat, etc.) are supposed to sound like(w/o effects) when fed direct, so he can EQ the channel. It takes a love/desire for, a dedication to, and a familiarity with, the real thing to train oneself to recognize the nuances of individual instruments(not to mention- years). The venues are another story altogether. The bottom line is this though: What makes us happy and what makes someone else happy are never going to be about "right" and "wrong". It's all subjective. Some people like Chef Boy-R-Dee pizza(which I'll NEVER understand). But- If we all had the same tastes this would be a really boring world. NOW- It's different if you hire me to do your group's sound, or correct the acoutics in your concert hall. If I don't know what I'm doing/can't hear: Your group will sound lousy, the venue may be an acoustic nightmare. That's wrong and there are a bunch of those out there that need their fingernails extracted with.... Oh never mind! But- I'll never tell someone what pleases him in the privacy of his listening room is wrong, even though I find some notions really bizarre.
Yeah, as you know, us trumpeters have a love/hate relationship with our soundmen. I actually worked a funk/rock/soul band for several years in Dallas that had TWO world class soundmen. One won and Emmy for sound and the other owns the original Jam studio that jingles for the likes of Dick Clark, BBC, WABC, etc. UNFORTUNATELY, they played 2d trumpet and keyboards and our full time guy was a carpenter by trade. With their help and a couple of years of seasoning he actually got decent. (I could tell stories, but we'd need a new thread).

I DO appreciate how hard your job can be and love it when I hear it done correctly. It's doubly nice to be in a band and have the stage sound wonderful and the house sound so good that people are talking about it. I know how hard that is to achieve.

I've got a great new album called "Cannon Reloaded", a tribute to Cannonball Adderley. Unfortunately Terence Blanchard's trumpet has a little hard edge due to mic choice or compression. Oh, I hate that, but I know that a big blower like Terence can drive the sound men wild.

Anyway, we're on the same page. I'm amazed that someone could hear the richness of the real thing and then want something watered down. Oh well...

Dave
Dave- I'll bet you'd enjoy 'A Twist of Motown' on GRP(if you don't already have it). Lee Ritenour produced it(a lot of contemporary jazz greats doing a collection of motown standards). On a couple cuts the bass can get a tad heavy, but other than that it's engineered really well. Chris Botti's kickin' it on Papa Was a Rollin' Stone.