Dear Thuchan: +++++ " I rather go for lively, emotional sound, no neutral or clinical clean waves or flat in terms of frequency response. " +++++
that's the key to understand each to other:
Music per se is " lively and emotional " and I like you always look for that in any home audio system, so my targets on this regard is no different from yours: one " point " to both for agreement.
" Neutral or Clinical clean waves ": IMHO Neutral means " something " and Clinical clean waves means " something different ".
If we take Neutral let me say that something to be Neutral must be accurate. In theory the Music/sound that comes in the LP recording ( where the recording was made and is out of your/mine control. ) almost always came with that " lively and emotional " charge level ( different charge levels but came with. ). IMHO it is not the cartridge or the phono stage or the speakers or the room treatment or all these " factors " the ones that put that " lively and emotional " charge. These " factors " all and each one what can do is degrade, distort, put colorations, noises and the like to the the recording signal.
My take here is what I promoted for several years in this forum: ADD AND LOSE THE LESS TO PRESERVE THE RECORDING SIGNAL INTEGRITY and now I can add: to preserve the " lively and emotional " recording charge level.
That statement means ( between other things. More on this latter. ): accuracy and neutrality, with out these characteristics we can't achieve those overall targets.
One stop I have to do is: that today almost any " decent " audio items designs IMHO are good enough ( they improvement over the last 10 years, especially on electronics/speakers. ) to be accurate, neutrals and with out any sign of " clinical, analitic or cold " performance, especially the SS designs. If a system sounds clinical/analitical something is wrong in that audio system chain and has to be fixed.
IMHO Accuracy and Neutrality is no more a sinonimous of: clinical, analitical or cold performance, this was in the past and over the years the AHEE promoted it as a myth.
Accuracy and neutrality not only not preclude that " lively and emotional " recording charge/content but enhance it, permit that you and me be nearer to the recording nearer to that " lively and emotional " content.
Thuchan: why do you need or any one else to add a " ton " of distortions ( every kind ) to achieve that " lively and emotional " music enjoyment when that " lively and emotional " content is already " there " and does not needs " distortions " surrounded it?.
Audio items specifications at least serve for we can know what we are adding and loosing to recorded signal. Following with my statement and trying to take decisions according with: that " simple " 1db RIAA eq. deviation in the EMT Phonolinepreamp preclude even to " see " it for more information, that RIAA deviation is IMHO unacceptable inside " excellence level standards ".
Why ( everything the same. ) any one can choose that RIAA deviation over other unit with a 0.1db?, why? why? why ?
Thuchan, please remember that the RIAA eq. is a curve and any single deviation affect not only that frequency but at least two octaves and this means that if we have a deviation say at 300hz we will have a " coloration/distortion " in the frequency range between: 300hz and 900hz. If the deviation came at 2khz this affect the frequency band all the way up to 6khz. You can take a look to that DM10 or the Dartzeel charts I linked before.
So we are not talking here of " something " that we can diminish in anyway if the name of our targets is: EXCELLENCE, I asume this is your target too.
If we take those Wavacs I would like to take its output impedance measure ( that you can't find it anywhere and for good reasons. ) that even that does not exist as an amplifier specification anywhere in the net and due that is a tube design I asume is a high output impedance, say over 0.1 ohm maybe over 0.5 ohm or even higher.
But what this amplifier output impedance means? why is important to achieve our Excellence level target?,
very simple: the Ohms Law where the amplifier output impedance is the one that " decide " how will be the response/sound when the amplifier " see " ( is in direct touch. ) the loudspeaker own electrical impedance and phase curve.
Here are two examples of that electrical impedance and phase curves, one for the B&W 802D and the other for the MagicoQ5:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements
http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements
we can see how the loudspeakers impedance/phase curve " moves " ( up and down ) over frequency range and this is what the amplifier " see " and has to handle with " aplomb ".
If an amplifier ( like yours ) has a high output impedance its response will almost " mimic " that curve with its output level, so that amplifier is functioning as and additional equalizer with what you see on those charts.
This is not what you or any one want it, what we want is that it does not matters the speaker electrical impedance and phase curves the response be flat with the same gain over the frequency range.
Here either we can't IMHO diminish that fact. For years I used tube electronics till I learn.
The incredible " fact " is that several today speaker designs were voiced with tube electronics and this is not because the speaker designers does not know Ohm's Laws but because Commercial$$$$ issue ( there are a lot of tube electronic users out there and growing up!. ) and on some cases because tubes hide bad speaker designs: yes the AHEE " write the rules ".
These are only two examples ( RIAA and impedance. ) of many more that many of us are not taking in count because: " It's wrong but I like it " attitude.
Lewm posted someting questioning my Velodyne's/speakers. I did not choosed the Velodyne's just for " fun " or at random, as in almost all my audio items/links there are " deep " reasons.
There are a lot of subs out there and many of them very good too but till today and for a two channel system no other subwoofer has a THD so low like the Velodynes. The THD is in this audio item extremely important and almost no one cares when choosed their subs.
Not only that, you can go to any subs manufacturer site and you can't find the sub THD specification and if you ask to the manufacturer he has no answer ( I know this because I did it. ).
Is it to go down to 18hz-20hz ow whatever important? certainly it is but is more important how we achieve that low bass and with which THD level because our hears are sensitive ( quite sensitive ) to high distortions in this frequency range ( well if you can recognize that kind of distortion.
I remember that no more than two years ago an Agoner in this forum was showing how good his system " performs " and if I remember well he stated that his system subwoofers had the capacity to performs over 138 db ( maybe more at 20hz ) on SPL, I posted a single and simple question about: please let me know with which THD levels at different SPL? and you know what: till today he never gives an answer.
It is extremely dificult to have low distortions in a subwoofer that's why the THD figure is so important and the 0.5% on the Velodyne is a good standard.. Do you know which is the THD number on your subs at 120 db of SPL? no?, well try to measure it and you will be surprised about. Do you know the IMD figure in your main speakers at say 95 db continuous SPL?, you will be surprised here too when you take that measure.
Btw, Halcro: ask Vanderstenn for that figure at different SPL, I have the answer.
Thuchan, Why have we to accept " mediocrity " when we can choose the Excellence?, there is no reason for that. We all are surrounded by audio mediocrity that the AHEE promoted over the years and as Lewm said: we are almost traped there.
This is not the way I like to live my audio life I decided to take a different " road ": is it that way what you want to live?, I don't think so: always is time to make the right changes.
Don't think that I'm against the tube electronic designers, not at all I have a lot of respect for them because even all the tube technology limitations there are some guys like the Atmasphere /Ralph that really contribute to serious improvements on the tube world. I'm against the tube technology heavy limitations that goes against the MUSIC.
When I brought the Dertonarm idea of that Common listening Approach my intention was to show you ( all of you ) how a specific listening process ( my process. ) can help any one first to understand what each one of you are hearing/listening, second to discern very precise about different kind of distortions ( example: cartridge microphony level, overhang vs SRA, tracking distortion levels, accuracy against distortions, neutrality against colored performance, etc, etc. ) and where it comes and to know where each one of us are " seated " in that Audio Learning Curve and how improve.
Almost no one really shows interest about ( like the first time with Dertonarm thread. ) even no single one of you asked which recording/LPs tracks can show you about cartridge tracking distortion level or microphony cartridge level or other quality performance subjects. As I posted many of you are not prepared yet or simple as this: does not care about, what you want is: " It is wrong but I like it " against " IT IS RIGHT AND I LIKE IT ".
Those Signets ( 3,5,7 ) are IMHO and as I posted an average performers with many troubles about distortions/colorations/resonances and the like againstother top cartridges performers. I can discern many things that you can't and not because I'm better than you but only because I'm trained to do it and you not or at least your test process can't tell you yet.
Do you think that I discerned and posted about the RIAA errors on the Dartzeel or the SS strain gauge with out prior knowledge ( way before ) of its real RIAA deviations only because I have ears?, certainly not: NO ONE COULD DO IT WITH OUT A PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PROCESS TRAINING and this is what I have.
I already left behind the tonearm FR experience where I was a fanatic of it till I learned, the SAEC 506 and 8000 episode, the Micro Seiki heavy BD TTs, the SUTs ( any kind . ), obviously tubes, TT clamps, electrical power ( conditioners ", the terrible Orsonics headshells, the big and comfortable couch on system seat position, the fancy cable and cable connectors, the non-removable headshell tonearm designs, the full range speakers, the LOMC cartridges ( any. ), the stand alone phono stages, the passive line stages, etc, etc. I left behind any audio alternative that increment distortions at an unacceptable level. Distortions are the Music enemy and we have to learn how detect it and how make dust/LOWER on it.
Right now I'm preparing to change the three premium caps ( teflon between them. ) on my crossover's ( each side ) speakers for simple/plain cheap electrolitic caps in a special configuration that's a very promising alternative.
I try always to be open to any orthodox or unorthodox audio alternative looking for lower distortions and improvements. I almost never say NO, first I tested and decide about. It is only attitude and this kind of attitude always gives me big rewards that no amount of money can buy.
I have two samples of a " wrong " attitude, one comes from an Agoner friend that owns Avalon Ascents speakers and that in my subwoofer thread I asked him to try subs with those speakers because I thinked he will receive a good quality performance system improvement. Well this guy gives me any explanation you could think telling me why subs can't works in his system: from technical explanation to subjective explanations, all those explanations were pure theory that he can't prove that he can't duplicate " live " and for that explanations he lose the best opportunity to have a real great system improvement.
Other one is Lewm ( only an example and nothing personal Lewm. ) against DD TT naked fashion and its improvements over plinthed alternatives: I give him exactly what to do only to test on the set up he already had with almost no investment and because he thinked ( in theory is right. ) that a stand alone tonearm is " wrong " solution and that the plinthed alternative is better than a naked one he refuse to try it with no single prove with no single sign that could tell him that he can duplicate his theories, even he had a second opportunity with his MK3 and he did nothing about only because on what he belive but that can't duplicate at least to find out if those theories are true. This kind of attitude IMHO goes against audio learning.
A subjective explanation or thechnical explanation has almost no value if you can't duplicate " live " those " explanations ".
There is one experience that I want to share with you. The tested experience came from an Agoner joke in one of mi threads: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1219677256.
Things were that I posted the importance of what clothe we are wearing when listening the audio system: sintetic fibres or natural fibers, where with the natural fibers ( wool or cotton. ) exist an improvement in what we perceive through the audio system ( here we have to remember that we hear through our whole body and senses, including our eyes that's why I think that the people that listen to their audio systems with close-eyes are hearing something that's does not comes in the recording ( in the very first moment that we close the eyes the " imagination " take the " control ". ) in the same manner that the ones that listening with lights off: when was the last time you attend to a live concert where the hall was on black dark during the playback?, makes no sense . ). Well that Agoner posted: " Hey why not naked? ", everyone laughed but time latter I remember him and I said: " yes, why not? what can I lose? " and I run this fully naked listening test.
You have to do it it is a glorious audio/listening test/experience that you can't even imagine or dream with till you experience first hand. I have to say is not easy because we are not accustom to be and seat fully naked to listen our home audio system, at first we suffer of some kind of " stress " because the naked condition but after we surpass that moment the rewards comes.
Till now only Banquo63 understand ( I'm not saying he agree. ) my position or at least was the only person that express oneself in the subject.
Anyway, I take you as an example and I confirm you that there is nothing personal other than try to help you: even that you did not asked for.
Can I be wrong?, certainly yes but I need proofs ( external proofs. ) why I'm wrong.
Whit out a specific process tests any kind iof improvements in our audio systems is at random: we need a specific path we need specific targets to have at least a comparison medium, if not how can we sure that a change in our system is a real improvement and no a side or back step?: only because our ears? only because we like those different and higher distortions?. IMHO we need some objectivity weight in our audio " ideas " along subjectivity weight.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
that's the key to understand each to other:
Music per se is " lively and emotional " and I like you always look for that in any home audio system, so my targets on this regard is no different from yours: one " point " to both for agreement.
" Neutral or Clinical clean waves ": IMHO Neutral means " something " and Clinical clean waves means " something different ".
If we take Neutral let me say that something to be Neutral must be accurate. In theory the Music/sound that comes in the LP recording ( where the recording was made and is out of your/mine control. ) almost always came with that " lively and emotional " charge level ( different charge levels but came with. ). IMHO it is not the cartridge or the phono stage or the speakers or the room treatment or all these " factors " the ones that put that " lively and emotional " charge. These " factors " all and each one what can do is degrade, distort, put colorations, noises and the like to the the recording signal.
My take here is what I promoted for several years in this forum: ADD AND LOSE THE LESS TO PRESERVE THE RECORDING SIGNAL INTEGRITY and now I can add: to preserve the " lively and emotional " recording charge level.
That statement means ( between other things. More on this latter. ): accuracy and neutrality, with out these characteristics we can't achieve those overall targets.
One stop I have to do is: that today almost any " decent " audio items designs IMHO are good enough ( they improvement over the last 10 years, especially on electronics/speakers. ) to be accurate, neutrals and with out any sign of " clinical, analitic or cold " performance, especially the SS designs. If a system sounds clinical/analitical something is wrong in that audio system chain and has to be fixed.
IMHO Accuracy and Neutrality is no more a sinonimous of: clinical, analitical or cold performance, this was in the past and over the years the AHEE promoted it as a myth.
Accuracy and neutrality not only not preclude that " lively and emotional " recording charge/content but enhance it, permit that you and me be nearer to the recording nearer to that " lively and emotional " content.
Thuchan: why do you need or any one else to add a " ton " of distortions ( every kind ) to achieve that " lively and emotional " music enjoyment when that " lively and emotional " content is already " there " and does not needs " distortions " surrounded it?.
Audio items specifications at least serve for we can know what we are adding and loosing to recorded signal. Following with my statement and trying to take decisions according with: that " simple " 1db RIAA eq. deviation in the EMT Phonolinepreamp preclude even to " see " it for more information, that RIAA deviation is IMHO unacceptable inside " excellence level standards ".
Why ( everything the same. ) any one can choose that RIAA deviation over other unit with a 0.1db?, why? why? why ?
Thuchan, please remember that the RIAA eq. is a curve and any single deviation affect not only that frequency but at least two octaves and this means that if we have a deviation say at 300hz we will have a " coloration/distortion " in the frequency range between: 300hz and 900hz. If the deviation came at 2khz this affect the frequency band all the way up to 6khz. You can take a look to that DM10 or the Dartzeel charts I linked before.
So we are not talking here of " something " that we can diminish in anyway if the name of our targets is: EXCELLENCE, I asume this is your target too.
If we take those Wavacs I would like to take its output impedance measure ( that you can't find it anywhere and for good reasons. ) that even that does not exist as an amplifier specification anywhere in the net and due that is a tube design I asume is a high output impedance, say over 0.1 ohm maybe over 0.5 ohm or even higher.
But what this amplifier output impedance means? why is important to achieve our Excellence level target?,
very simple: the Ohms Law where the amplifier output impedance is the one that " decide " how will be the response/sound when the amplifier " see " ( is in direct touch. ) the loudspeaker own electrical impedance and phase curve.
Here are two examples of that electrical impedance and phase curves, one for the B&W 802D and the other for the MagicoQ5:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements
http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements
we can see how the loudspeakers impedance/phase curve " moves " ( up and down ) over frequency range and this is what the amplifier " see " and has to handle with " aplomb ".
If an amplifier ( like yours ) has a high output impedance its response will almost " mimic " that curve with its output level, so that amplifier is functioning as and additional equalizer with what you see on those charts.
This is not what you or any one want it, what we want is that it does not matters the speaker electrical impedance and phase curves the response be flat with the same gain over the frequency range.
Here either we can't IMHO diminish that fact. For years I used tube electronics till I learn.
The incredible " fact " is that several today speaker designs were voiced with tube electronics and this is not because the speaker designers does not know Ohm's Laws but because Commercial$$$$ issue ( there are a lot of tube electronic users out there and growing up!. ) and on some cases because tubes hide bad speaker designs: yes the AHEE " write the rules ".
These are only two examples ( RIAA and impedance. ) of many more that many of us are not taking in count because: " It's wrong but I like it " attitude.
Lewm posted someting questioning my Velodyne's/speakers. I did not choosed the Velodyne's just for " fun " or at random, as in almost all my audio items/links there are " deep " reasons.
There are a lot of subs out there and many of them very good too but till today and for a two channel system no other subwoofer has a THD so low like the Velodynes. The THD is in this audio item extremely important and almost no one cares when choosed their subs.
Not only that, you can go to any subs manufacturer site and you can't find the sub THD specification and if you ask to the manufacturer he has no answer ( I know this because I did it. ).
Is it to go down to 18hz-20hz ow whatever important? certainly it is but is more important how we achieve that low bass and with which THD level because our hears are sensitive ( quite sensitive ) to high distortions in this frequency range ( well if you can recognize that kind of distortion.
I remember that no more than two years ago an Agoner in this forum was showing how good his system " performs " and if I remember well he stated that his system subwoofers had the capacity to performs over 138 db ( maybe more at 20hz ) on SPL, I posted a single and simple question about: please let me know with which THD levels at different SPL? and you know what: till today he never gives an answer.
It is extremely dificult to have low distortions in a subwoofer that's why the THD figure is so important and the 0.5% on the Velodyne is a good standard.. Do you know which is the THD number on your subs at 120 db of SPL? no?, well try to measure it and you will be surprised about. Do you know the IMD figure in your main speakers at say 95 db continuous SPL?, you will be surprised here too when you take that measure.
Btw, Halcro: ask Vanderstenn for that figure at different SPL, I have the answer.
Thuchan, Why have we to accept " mediocrity " when we can choose the Excellence?, there is no reason for that. We all are surrounded by audio mediocrity that the AHEE promoted over the years and as Lewm said: we are almost traped there.
This is not the way I like to live my audio life I decided to take a different " road ": is it that way what you want to live?, I don't think so: always is time to make the right changes.
Don't think that I'm against the tube electronic designers, not at all I have a lot of respect for them because even all the tube technology limitations there are some guys like the Atmasphere /Ralph that really contribute to serious improvements on the tube world. I'm against the tube technology heavy limitations that goes against the MUSIC.
When I brought the Dertonarm idea of that Common listening Approach my intention was to show you ( all of you ) how a specific listening process ( my process. ) can help any one first to understand what each one of you are hearing/listening, second to discern very precise about different kind of distortions ( example: cartridge microphony level, overhang vs SRA, tracking distortion levels, accuracy against distortions, neutrality against colored performance, etc, etc. ) and where it comes and to know where each one of us are " seated " in that Audio Learning Curve and how improve.
Almost no one really shows interest about ( like the first time with Dertonarm thread. ) even no single one of you asked which recording/LPs tracks can show you about cartridge tracking distortion level or microphony cartridge level or other quality performance subjects. As I posted many of you are not prepared yet or simple as this: does not care about, what you want is: " It is wrong but I like it " against " IT IS RIGHT AND I LIKE IT ".
Those Signets ( 3,5,7 ) are IMHO and as I posted an average performers with many troubles about distortions/colorations/resonances and the like againstother top cartridges performers. I can discern many things that you can't and not because I'm better than you but only because I'm trained to do it and you not or at least your test process can't tell you yet.
Do you think that I discerned and posted about the RIAA errors on the Dartzeel or the SS strain gauge with out prior knowledge ( way before ) of its real RIAA deviations only because I have ears?, certainly not: NO ONE COULD DO IT WITH OUT A PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PROCESS TRAINING and this is what I have.
I already left behind the tonearm FR experience where I was a fanatic of it till I learned, the SAEC 506 and 8000 episode, the Micro Seiki heavy BD TTs, the SUTs ( any kind . ), obviously tubes, TT clamps, electrical power ( conditioners ", the terrible Orsonics headshells, the big and comfortable couch on system seat position, the fancy cable and cable connectors, the non-removable headshell tonearm designs, the full range speakers, the LOMC cartridges ( any. ), the stand alone phono stages, the passive line stages, etc, etc. I left behind any audio alternative that increment distortions at an unacceptable level. Distortions are the Music enemy and we have to learn how detect it and how make dust/LOWER on it.
Right now I'm preparing to change the three premium caps ( teflon between them. ) on my crossover's ( each side ) speakers for simple/plain cheap electrolitic caps in a special configuration that's a very promising alternative.
I try always to be open to any orthodox or unorthodox audio alternative looking for lower distortions and improvements. I almost never say NO, first I tested and decide about. It is only attitude and this kind of attitude always gives me big rewards that no amount of money can buy.
I have two samples of a " wrong " attitude, one comes from an Agoner friend that owns Avalon Ascents speakers and that in my subwoofer thread I asked him to try subs with those speakers because I thinked he will receive a good quality performance system improvement. Well this guy gives me any explanation you could think telling me why subs can't works in his system: from technical explanation to subjective explanations, all those explanations were pure theory that he can't prove that he can't duplicate " live " and for that explanations he lose the best opportunity to have a real great system improvement.
Other one is Lewm ( only an example and nothing personal Lewm. ) against DD TT naked fashion and its improvements over plinthed alternatives: I give him exactly what to do only to test on the set up he already had with almost no investment and because he thinked ( in theory is right. ) that a stand alone tonearm is " wrong " solution and that the plinthed alternative is better than a naked one he refuse to try it with no single prove with no single sign that could tell him that he can duplicate his theories, even he had a second opportunity with his MK3 and he did nothing about only because on what he belive but that can't duplicate at least to find out if those theories are true. This kind of attitude IMHO goes against audio learning.
A subjective explanation or thechnical explanation has almost no value if you can't duplicate " live " those " explanations ".
There is one experience that I want to share with you. The tested experience came from an Agoner joke in one of mi threads: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1219677256.
Things were that I posted the importance of what clothe we are wearing when listening the audio system: sintetic fibres or natural fibers, where with the natural fibers ( wool or cotton. ) exist an improvement in what we perceive through the audio system ( here we have to remember that we hear through our whole body and senses, including our eyes that's why I think that the people that listen to their audio systems with close-eyes are hearing something that's does not comes in the recording ( in the very first moment that we close the eyes the " imagination " take the " control ". ) in the same manner that the ones that listening with lights off: when was the last time you attend to a live concert where the hall was on black dark during the playback?, makes no sense . ). Well that Agoner posted: " Hey why not naked? ", everyone laughed but time latter I remember him and I said: " yes, why not? what can I lose? " and I run this fully naked listening test.
You have to do it it is a glorious audio/listening test/experience that you can't even imagine or dream with till you experience first hand. I have to say is not easy because we are not accustom to be and seat fully naked to listen our home audio system, at first we suffer of some kind of " stress " because the naked condition but after we surpass that moment the rewards comes.
Till now only Banquo63 understand ( I'm not saying he agree. ) my position or at least was the only person that express oneself in the subject.
Anyway, I take you as an example and I confirm you that there is nothing personal other than try to help you: even that you did not asked for.
Can I be wrong?, certainly yes but I need proofs ( external proofs. ) why I'm wrong.
Whit out a specific process tests any kind iof improvements in our audio systems is at random: we need a specific path we need specific targets to have at least a comparison medium, if not how can we sure that a change in our system is a real improvement and no a side or back step?: only because our ears? only because we like those different and higher distortions?. IMHO we need some objectivity weight in our audio " ideas " along subjectivity weight.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.