Forum
System building 101A
<< Back to threads in Amplifiers
| Post Reply | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
| Posted By |
Message |
| JanVigne |
|
|
http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/michael-percy-audio-2636/audio-catalog-12776.html |
| JanVigne |
|
|
The paging seems to have made IE happy. I have the full thread view now.
While we're waiting for MW, let's add yet another layer of depth to this discussion.
Should you perform a cable change between, say, two competing brands within a similar price range - each with their own story of improved cable designs - and everything is perceived to be equal to your prior set up, what would you say is happening? Or, do you always perceive some change when you swap cables? Let's call "everything equal" our First Degree of Change. "Perceived change" will come next.
At that next level, should you perform a cable change - possibly something so simple as reversing the direction of a cable in a supposedly non-directional design - and most everything is still equal to your prior set up except a few "noticeable" small details; the attack/decay of certain notes, the apparent width/depth of the soundstage, the forward momentum of the performance, etc. - small things which do not constitute a clearly "significant" improvement, what would you say is happening? To be clear, this is not a question about directionality in cables or pricing in cables. That would get us into yet another discussion all together. We'll call "most everything the same except for small, less significant values" our Second Degree of Change.
To clarify, this is a question about what, in your view, might be happening within the system, within the environment of the listening space, or within you which would account for even the slightest perceived change when most values of music reproduction remain the same and all pertinent technical apsects of the system remain constant yet you perceive a change of any degree. For issues of discussion we will assume that only one intended change has been made and any perceived change would be the result of that single alteration. This is Second Degree Change.
(We are all happy to report that "the right cables" have made a "noticeable" to a "significant" improvement/difference to our perception of the system's output. Additionally, we all have our favorite cable brands or even our favorite cable construction techniques; braided, ribbon, twisted pairs, parallel runs, stranded, solid core, PVC, Teflon, etc.. For now, we are not going to discuss any easily measureable differences between, say, a PVC and a Teflon dielectric. Plus, I think we should all be able to agree that with the hundreds of competing cables available, there might be a stinker or two. Yet one person might prefer what another listener considers to be inferior. This too is not the real question here since that answer is too obvious. I'm trying to ignore simple answers such as personal favorites and preferences or easily measured parameters of system performance.
The actual question is, (for a Second Degree of Change) what about those times when most musical values but not all values - no change in perceived frequency response or extension, no lowered noise level and so forth - remain unchanged in any highly "noticeable" manner and no "significant" improvement has been made to the quality of the music reproduction? What is now the rationale for better cables or what is your thinking about cables you are auditioning when only those small values in the music or your system's perceived performance change or improve? Not monetarily; if you can afford it, buy it. But rather a change/improvement which is just noticeable or significant enough to make you consider a purchase. Or to say, "I did good."
Or, is this more your experience with cable swaps overall? Only small things change or improve. If it is, that's fine, we all listen in different ways and to different values. And certainly at a point things become a matter of diminishing returns for the amount of money laid out. Expecting a similar degree of change between a $2k cable and a $4k cable as was found between a $50 cable and a $250 cable would fall into the realm of diminishing returns in the average $7-10k system.)
For our Third Degree of Change we'll ask this, what might be occurring if most things are equivalents with a new cable except for, say, more obvious or more "significant" details in the music? What has changed/improved would be those values which add to the experience or those more pertinent values which make for a more readily accepted emotional connection to the performance? In other words, a more significant improvement than would be a Second Degree Change yet not a full fledged, "I heard 'better' bass" or, "The snares sounded more real". For example, MW suggests the ability to differentiate between a group of vocalists and a specific number of vocalists standing in a group formation is of value to his perception of the musical event and is an alteration which would lead him to a heightened experience of the performance. If we agree that this sort of heightened emotional connection or this greater insight into how, say, a performer or even a recording engineer approaches their art is a value we would prefer (a priority) in music reproduction, what would you say is happening which would account for this perceived more significant improvement? This will be our Third Degree of Change.
Are the individual questions; First, Second and Third Degree of Change easy enough to understand?
|
| Dan |
|
|
Thought I'd check in to see the progress of the site earlier this week. So this is where everyone is hanging out! Nice place, Dave!
A few days ago I started reading this thread and actually got through it. I wanted to add some thoughts in point form (to hopefully keep brief as I realize the discussion has moved on).
- expecting a system to reproduce what we hear in live, unamplified music is a valid goal. However, we must ask why so many people do not seem to use this as their reference
- if what you listen to mostly are live performances recorded direct to disc then live, unamplified music is a natural reference
- but I would guess most people do not. Most people listen to studio recordings, many of which are amplified. Pink Floyd and the like. Jazz and classical do not move as many units as pop and rock
- it had been stated earlier that audiophiles get too wrapped up in things like detail, imaging, etc. Tricks that a system can perform that isn't necessarily required to enjoy the music. We don't need a high end system to enjoy music. Most of us can find the tune just fine on an old transistor radio or mp3 player or what have you
- which leads me to my next question - is an old transistor radio or mp3 player transparent to the source? Do those technologies create a convincing illusion of a live, unamplified performance (or otherwise) by conveying proper pitch and tone, along with drive, dynamics, etc? I would say no, so there is something else that is necessary for us to enjoy listening to a system
- I've talked about this at ecoustics. The feeling I want more than any other is goosebumps, or a chill that runs down my spine. I want an emotional connection to the music. I get this not from a system that makes a piano sound like a piano, but from the emotion in the music being conveyed to me. In melodic music, the melody should be clear. With a hard driving tune, the momentum should be strong
- I do not believe I've come across a system where a piano or guitar sounded like something else. If you are intimately familiar with the sound of a specific instrument, then less transparent systems might obscure what it is that would help you pinpoint it. A highly transparent system would allow you to pinpoint the exact kind of piano. But does the less transparent system make the piano sound like it's not a piano, and does it ruin the tune? Not necessarily
- what I get from a high end system is a bigger scale and grander reproduction of a performance, with more insight than a lesser system can provide. But we've all heard high end systems that didn't sound right. I think this is because, when you get to a higher level of transparency where you have more control over choosing the various pieces in a system, more can go wrong (i.e. mismatches and setup). If you get it right, it should do what the lesser system does, but on a much bigger and more impressive scale, and also allow you to see deeper in to the performance
- on cables -
- I've heard differences. I don't know what is actually going on that causes these changes. However, I will note that my amp is known to be less stable with high capacitance cables. Therefore, I believe with this type of amp will highlight differences in cables more than will an amp that is more stable with different cable types. Like Jan said in previous threads, cables form part of a circuit, and when you change the cables you change the way the signal travels through your system. It's therefore logical to assume you will hear differences
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
" ... expecting a system to reproduce what we hear in live, unamplified music is a valid goal. However, we must ask why so many people do not seem to use this as their reference"
What makes you say "many people" do not use live music as their reference? What are they using as a reference? How many people do you know using this reference?
" ... if what you listen to mostly are live performances recorded direct to disc then live, unamplified music is a natural reference"
IMO you are making a few assumptions that shouldn't be made at this point. Recorded direct to disc? Why is that the criteria for whether or not you should also listen to live, unamplified music? I don't get the reference to direct to disc. In your opinion, is that the only way to record a performance and have it approach the quality of a live performance? Surely there are non-direct to disc recordings which can be used as a reference without resorting to full blown everyone-was-on-a-different-continent-when-they-recorded-their-part discs. Can you explain why this "direct to disc" would serve as the only appropriate reference? What values do you see in a direct to disc recording that you do not see in other types of recordings?
" ... I would guess most people do not. Most people listen to studio recordings, many of which are amplified. Pink Floyd and the like. Jazz and classical do not move as many units as pop and rock"
First, you are being too narrow in your categories of non-amplified music. There are electrified jazz performers just as there are acoustic rockers. You seem to be saying that rock must be devoid of valid references. Really? That's what you're saying? What about a studio disqualifies a recording as a reference tool?
" ... it had been stated earlier that audiophiles get too wrapped up in things like detail, imaging, etc. Tricks that a system can perform that isn't necessarily required to enjoy the music. We don't need a high end system to enjoy music. Most of us can find the tune just fine on an old transistor radio or mp3 player or what have you
- which leads me to my next question - is an old transistor radio or mp3 player transparent to the source? Do those technologies create a convincing illusion of a live, unamplified performance (or otherwise) by conveying proper pitch and tone, along with drive, dynamics, etc? I would say no, so there is something else that is necessary for us to enjoy listening to a system"
Several years ago I began a thread on ecoustics which was titled, "Do you listen". The initial question was quite broad, simply, "Do you regularly listen to live music performances?" I think one person claimed they had been to a live performance within the last year. Most saw no need for a live music reference. The motto was, "My ears tell me everything I need to know." As the thread went forward I did use the example of tapping your fingers to the music coming through an AM radio. My question then was much the same as your own, "What is it about a cheap car radio or an AM station with its 100-7kHz frequency response which can attract your attention in a more immediate way than you might experience through your 'high end' system?"
Opinions varied but my own feelings are the simplicity of reproduction need only be good enough to get out of the way of the music. Just as many younger listeners think their grandfathers must have suffered terribly without imaging and soundstage depth to convince them they were hearing a live performance, they also guess wrong most times about the attraction of a simple AM radio. Much of the attraction I find in 50, 60, 70, etc. year old recordings comes down to the fact there are no "system artifacts" to contend with. There's possibly more noise (which is rather easily overlooked) and usually a slightly less extended bandwidth but with all of the "hifi" things being non-existent, the performers and engineers had only one thing to make or break the recording - the music itself. Sixty years ago virtually everything was recorded direct to tape with either no or minimal overdubbing and tape edits. The performers played in what would easily be described as a live performance style with fairly minute differences between what was done that afternoon in the studio vs what was done that evening in front of a paying audience. The thing is, music itself has not changed over the last sixty years. We use the same musical scales and chord progressions as were available to any performer in 1952. Most of the techniques of the performers of that time are identical to those in use today. Therefore, amplified or not, there are easily perceived references in even the most "studio" of studio recordings - if only you know where to listen. Knowing where to listen involves either playing an instrument yourself or attending live performances. These are not "my ears tell me everything I need to know" issues. IMO, if someone put together a system without ever hearing live music, I can't imagine that system would be very good at reproducing music.
" ... I've talked about this at ecoustics. The feeling I want more than any other is goosebumps, or a chill that runs down my spine."
Is that your reaction to live music? Goosebumps? If it is not, why would you ask your system to be so colored in its reproduction that it must be intrusive into the music? If it is your experience, how often to do have the feeling of goosebumps at a live performance? Once? Twice? Constantly? What sort of thing or event sends a chill down your spine at a live show? Or, while listening to your music at home?
" ... I get this not from a system that makes a piano sound like a piano, but from the emotion in the music being conveyed to me. In melodic music, the melody should be clear. With a hard driving tune, the momentum should be strong"
Isn't it nearly impossible to have such a reaction if you are being distracted by the sound of a piano that doesn't sound like a piano? It would for me if suddenly the piano sounded more like a tuba or a harmonica. Or simply if a concert grand began to sound like a cheap upright. Isn't there some liabiity on the part of the system - and the person who constructs it - to recreate the bare, essential characteristic sounds of each instrument?
" ... I do not believe I've come across a system where a piano or guitar sounded like something else. If you are intimately familiar with the sound of a specific instrument, then less transparent systems might obscure what it is that would help you pinpoint it. A highly transparent system would allow you to pinpoint the exact kind of piano. But does the less transparent system make the piano sound like it's not a piano, and does it ruin the tune?"
First, I believe you are missing the part of live music which explains why a performer might select a certain brand or model of instrument. What can be extracted from a Baldwin piano cannot come from a Yamaha. An amplified instrument can be made to sound a dozen different ways with a simple flick of a switch or two. If you wish to have the sound of a human voice coming from your electric guitar, there is an effects pedal for that. Another pedal will simulate the sound of a piano. In amplified music, why a performer might select a Stratocaster over a Les Paul is explained by the music they play. While you could play heavy rock music power chords through a D'Angelico guitar, the D'Angelico is a jazz guitar. It is built to play jazz and not much about it would sway the hard rock player away from their Gibson Flying V. Why a performer chooses to use this instrument and not that instrument is something not to be glossed over lightly.
" ... does the less transparent system make the piano sound like it's not a piano, and does it ruin the tune?"
Sort of, yeah. I mean if we have reduced "music" down to being just "the tune", then, no, "the tune" is likely to remain intact and hopefully recognizable. Consider though if B.B. King played a $100 student guitar made of laminated plywood, he would still be B.B. King and a reasonably decent system would allow you to understand why King is a superior artist. But, to experience King at his best, isn't it best he be playing Lucille? And, isn't it preferred the system be up to the task of discerning the difference between a plywood student guitar and a $4k Gibson Lucille archtop? Once again, I can enjoy King's music playing through the car radio and recognize King's playing style. However, why assemble a "high end" (read; high priced) music reproduction system if you are not wanting it to be more similar to the live event than that car radio will ever be? What exactly are you trying to say here? A finer system will more easily portray the finer details of King's playing techniques. That's a highly desireable trait in a "better" system. With a performer such as King, these techniques and style which he has mastered are "the tune". Some one else could play exactly the same arrangement but, if they played through a Martin acoustic vs a Gibson Lucille and they lacked those qualities which make King "King", it would not be King that came to my mind when I heard the system reproduce what was on the recording. In such cases, "the tune" is the performer - B.B. King in this example - at work and not just a series of notes and rests and musical notations. If that's all you're after; a series of notes and musical notations, then why bother having a more transparent method of reproducing what is on the disc if you can ulitmately be satisfied with a car radio?
" ... what I get from a high end system is a bigger scale and grander reproduction of a performance, with more insight than a lesser system can provide. But we've all heard high end systems that didn't sound right. I think this is because, when you get to a higher level of transparency where you have more control over choosing the various pieces in a system, more can go wrong (i.e. mismatches and setup). If you get it right, it should do what the lesser system does, but on a much bigger and more impressive scale, and also allow you to see deeper in to the performance."
That's it?! That's all you get from a high end system? You put it together "right" and you have bigger and more impressive along with seeing deeper into the performance? No offense meant but that's a bit like saying, "I want tight bass, clear mids and clean highs?' How exactly do you go about building a system when your goal is "bigger" and "more impressive"? A pair of Klipschorns are big and they can be impressive. A live touring system would be big and probably quite impressive at close range. What sets your system apart from those systems? There must be more than "bigger" and "more impressive". What if it's bigger and more impressive but fails to allow you to see deeper into the performance? Is that a winner? Or, a looser? Where do you set your sights and where do you draw the line?
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"- on cables -
- I've heard differences. I don't know what is actually going on that causes these changes. However, I will note that my amp is known to be less stable with high capacitance cables. Therefore, I believe with this type of amp will highlight differences in cables more than will an amp that is more stable with different cable types. Like Jan said in previous threads, cables form part of a circuit, and when you change the cables you change the way the signal travels through your system. It's therefore logical to assume you will hear differences"
May I ask how curious you are to find out what is actually going on that would cause a change? If your only concern is resistance, inductance and capacitance in a cable, then a simple five dollar cable - the stuff that looks like zip cord put in a fancy package - from Radio Shack should serve your purpose and not drive your amp into oscillation.
"Less stable into a capacitive load" would primarily involve the loudspeakers attached to the speaker cables which complete the circuit between amp and load. In fact, there would be multitudes more capacitance in the average electrostatic loudspeaker than there would be in any cable. To be clear, cable capacitance is not a single set value. Total capacitance in a cable is measured by the length of the run; in other words, the spec you are looking at is for total capacitance per foot. Keep your speaker cables short and you minimize total capacitance in the cable run. Therefore, the idea is really not to use your amp with highly capacitive loads - not just cables with higher capacitance than inductance. Any twisted pair or braided cable will have a higher capacitance value than it would an inductance value due to the proximity of the conductor legs to one another. Space the conductor legs away from one another as in a parallel run or a ribbon type cable and capacitance goes down while inductance rises until the legs are so far apart they no longer have a significant self-inductance. The vast majority of speaker cables employ twisted pairs or braided sets.
So, how do you select your cables? And, what would account for any changes perceived when you swap interconnects which are on the input side of the amp?
An amplifier which is unstable into a capacitive load is typically fine until it begins to oscillate. Once oscillation begins you generally have a few seconds to shut down the system before damage occurs. Therefore, if I understand you correctly, you are using your not so typical amplifier to make broad assumptions regarding why cables affect the sound quality of the music reproduction. Is that correct? Where does that leave the person with a very typical amplifier which remains stable even into highly inductive or capacitive loads? Or, a tube amplifier with output transformers to serve as a buffer between the output devices and the load? What values would account for perceived changes in sonic merit in a system using such an amplifier?
|
| Dan |
|
|
"What makes you say "many people" do not use live music as their reference? What are they using as a reference? How many people do you know using this reference?"
Your comments from earlier made me say it! Where you illustrated how people responded to you when you sold audio components. And in this thread, where you mention asking at ecoustics how many people regularly attend live music performances. I'm not sure what these people use as a reference instead.
"IMO you are making a few assumptions that shouldn't be made at this point. Recorded direct to disc? Why is that the criteria for whether or not you should also listen to live, unamplified music? I don't get the reference to direct to disc. In your opinion, is that the only way to record a performance and have it approach the quality of a live performance?"
No, I don't mean that it's the only way to have a recording compare to a live show. Just that it is probably the surest way. As a listener you would know for certain that the recording is faithful.
"First, you are being too narrow in your categories of non-amplified music. There are electrified jazz performers just as there are acoustic rockers. You seem to be saying that rock must be devoid of valid references. Really? That's what you're saying? What about a studio disqualifies a recording as a reference tool?"
I don't know a lot about jazz, but I gather that a greater proportion of performances are acoustic as opposed to popular rock. Perhaps I am wrong on that front. Neil Young would likely be a good example of a rock performer who plays primarily acoustically on well recorded albums.
"Is that your reaction to live music? Goosebumps? If it is not, why would you ask your system to be so colored in its reproduction that it must be intrusive into the music? If it is your experience, how often to do have the feeling of goosebumps at a live performance? Once? Twice? Constantly? What sort of thing or event sends a chill down your spine at a live show? Or, while listening to your music at home?"
Whether it be goosebumps, a chill, or something else, I guess what I'm saying is a physical reaction to what I am hearing. At a live show, is it constant? No, but it should happen somewhat frequently. It's kind of like watching a movie...you want to laugh, cry, be scared, angry, provoked in some way. Something. Not for all 2 hours, but you want it to happen at least a few times in that span of time. Otherwise you are sitting there and really, what kind of impression is the film making on you?
"Isn't it nearly impossible to have such a reaction if you are being distracted by the sound of a piano that doesn't sound like a piano? It would for me if suddenly the piano sounded more like a tuba or a harmonica. Or simply if a concert grand began to sound like a cheap upright. Isn't there some liabiity on the part of the system - and the person who constructs it - to recreate the bare, essential characteristic sounds of each instrument?"
I don't think I've ever heard a system where a piano sounded like another instrument. The basic characteristic sound of the piano always comes out. Just like I can tell who is singing a song (if I know the singer) on pretty much every system. Is there a system so poor that you'd think it was Keith Richards and not Mick Jagger singing a Stones song? But I think I can see what you are saying. Do I get more satisfaction listening to vocals or a piano or guitar on my system vs. a system that is less transparent and resolving? Yes. There is a richness of tone in the lower registers of these instruments that I did not get before I changed my speakers, that to me seems more correct and helps with achieving a "you are there" kind of feeling.
"First, I believe you are missing the part of live music which explains why a performer might select a certain brand or model of instrument. What can be extracted from a Baldwin piano cannot come from a Yamaha."
I agree that the choice of instrument shouldn't be glossed over and is key to the performance. I guess I am just trying to put forth an argument as to why many people do not use live music as a reference. Since those threads at ecoustics, I have paid more attention to live unamplified music. However, the average music listener (which I am still closer to than not) will not be as intimately familiar with music that they will understand what a specific piano might bring to a performance. That understanding might be required to appreciate a song on a deeper level, but I'm not sure it's required to simply enjoy listening to the song.
"However, why assemble a "high end" (read; high priced) music reproduction system if you are not wanting it to be more similar to the live event than that car radio will ever be? What exactly are you trying to say here? A finer system will more easily portray the finer details of King's playing techniques. That's a highly desireable trait in a "better" system."
I agree. But does being able to enjoy playback on a high end system require one to have that intimate knowledge of live shows and instruments? I'd say it can only enhance your appreciation of the system, but most people who do not have this knowledge would still be able to appreciate many of the benefits of this type of system. There is no doubt that you can hear deeper into the performance...multiple voices instead of just one (as I think MW pointed out), better tone, the intricacies of what each musician is doing as smaller details of the performance are revealed. People who might not know a Yamaha from a Baldwin could still appreciate many other things, and perhaps these things will eventually lead to a curiosity to explore other music genres and attend live shows and eventually an even greater appreciation for what a good system can do.
|
| Dan |
|
|
"So, how do you select your cables? And, what would account for any changes perceived when you swap interconnects which are on the input side of the amp?"
A local dealer advised what speaker cables would work. When we sat down and listened the improvement was clear. As for interconnects, I have only experimented with two so far, one of which I felt sounded much better. Both are low capacitance as well. To be honest, I'm not sure if the interconnects should also be low capacitance or just the speaker cables. Finding this information online has proven difficult. But, I am quite satisfied now so the search for more cables has pretty much ended.
"Therefore, if I understand you correctly, you are using your not so typical amplifier to make broad assumptions regarding why cables affect the sound quality of the music reproduction. Is that correct? Where does that leave the person with a very typical amplifier which remains stable even into highly inductive or capacitive loads? Or, a tube amplifier with output transformers to serve as a buffer between the output devices and the load? What values would account for perceived changes in sonic merit in a system using such an amplifier?"
I am only making assumptions as they pertain to my amp, and perhaps other similarly designed amps. I imagine that there are many cables that would not be suitable for my amp that would actually be ideal for other amps.
|
| MW3 |
|
|
On 4/2/2012 JanVigne posted: “Those of you who believe cables are an important component in your audio system feel so for a certain reason.
What is your reason for your belief?”
For several years I had a burning desire to own a two channel system that was the best my ears could hear. About 20 some years ago I realized that I would never be able to afford that because I thought I could simply purchase it.
Today I have that system because I built it more than bought it. I have put so much into it my system in time, money, effort, and I get so much enjoyment from it in return that I treat my system as a living breathing extension of myself. Heck, my dogs will even lay in the room for hours on end while I am listening to it.
Cables are like the veins and arteries of my system. It provides the lifeblood flow of the electronics that enables the sound to move from the source to and through my speakers.
|
| MW3 |
|
|
On 04/03/2012 JanVigne posted; “Anyone else have any comments on why they first experimented with cables as a system component?”
To me this question is quite different than the first one about cables on 04/02/2012 from JanVigne.
I have developed a theory as to why folks experiment with cables.
Cables for the basis of this post mean Interconnects (ICs), Speaker Wire (sw), or Power Cords (pc). These all move in and out of your system for several reasons;
• money to burn so you endeavor to upgrade
• you change your gear and feel the need to change the cables
• you either read something or were given a recommendation and cannot resist the urge to find out for yourself
• you heard a system complementary to yours, liked the way it sounded, and recognized cables that you had not tried in your system
• you recognize that you are close to what you want from your system but are not quite there,
• or JV comes over and says “Here try these.”
Here is a brief synopsis of my evolution with cables. My experimentation with cables was a learning discovery. I went from complete Noob ignorance, to knowledgeably dangerous (this gets really expensive), to truly listening and gaining references to live music. I also never lost the deep impression of music while listening to my grandfather’s all in one JVC tuner / turntable, tube amplified system.
1. Lowes, Walmart, Target, or Radio Shack; Good, Better, Best (ICs and sw)
a. This worked for me when I started using a two channel system and ran RCA’s from my cable box to the receiver instead of to the TV. This was after quadraphonics and before Dolby.
b. This also worked for me as I go into Dolby systems and used my front left and right JBLs for stereo playback.
This always kept me ahead of my friends and family but I was nowhere in terms of musical representation to what a live presentation would sound like. I wasn’t even trying to reproduce the live experience at this stage.
2. Dealer states how “good” these are. (ICs and Speaker Wire)
a. By now I have evolved into getting a dedicated two channel amp, a used Adcom amp with a used Lexicon Dolby surround processor for a pre-amp and a DVD player for a CDP driving my Monitor Audio Silver 8i’s (which Nuck stole from me).
b. I stayed with this while I upgraded to a Creek 5350 SE intergrated amp.
c. Same while I experimented with Carver Amps and some tower speakers whose brand eludes me (Nuck stole these from me too!)
d. Then I had an epiphany when JV “loaned me” a McIntosh MA-6200.
Item “d.” was an epiphany because up until then I was building towards accuracy with no trace of musical reproduction in my efforts. The 6200 literally shocked me into reality. Up until then I was trying to build a technically accurate system and had not embraced the music. PRaT were not in the game until I had JVs 6200.
3. Best clearance price at dealer or online. (Speaker wire)
a. With the McIntosh in place I was no longer driving high powered Carvers so I started experimenting with everything;
i. Home Depot Extension cords – probably the best sound for the investment of any speaker wire I used.
ii. JV’s DIY home remedy. Better than HD cord but more time involved in building them.
iii. My modifications of JV’s DIY; Radio Shack 30 AWG Magnet wire negative, .999 pure silver 28 AWG wire positive, w/Eichmann Bullet Connectors
The modified DIYs were a joy to me because it did maintain a musicality that the much more expensive cables did not even attempt to provide.
4. Best reviews. (ICs, sw, and pc)
a. This led me to demo cables at home or buy online at Audiogon.
b. I also bought element cables pc and sw direct from manufacturer this way.
This might as well be another version of “3.” above as I was doing this as well up until the DIYs in 3.a.iii.
5. It was free. (ICs)
a. Who turns down free?
Same as number “4.”.
6. It was in JV’s kit. (ICs)
a. This is where the “Here try these.” comes into play.
b. I had been a happy camper for a couple of years running the DIY sw and ICs (I was particularly thrilled that these out performed ICs and sw costing hundreds of dollars and I was able to build the ICs for about $75 (90% of the cost was the Eichmann Bullets) and the sw for about $4 for 8 ft.
c. Now suddenly I was introduced to MIT. Game over.
d. Bought several versions of MIT cables on Audiogon and E-Bay each one slightly outdoing the next.
The MIT – 2’s that JV lent me will always be the most special cables I ever owned. They were an ugly dull yellow with non-descript connectors. They were very soft and pliable much unlike the expensive cables I had worked through prior to the DIYs I fell in love with.
They added more weight to the sound. They brought out the emotion that the DIYs to me lacked. The DIYs had the accuracy and detail but the MIT – 2s had the warmth and depth that so much better matched the pre-amp and Rega Saturn. (Perhaps it was the Apollo).
Since JV indicated that these were several versions older than the current MITs I thought if these were that good what could I do with later versions?
Let me take you back to the beginning of this post where I now fall into the “money to burn so you endeavor to upgrade” mode as the MIT – 2s were most satisfying to me. The next level I went to were MIT – Terminators, and after another round or two of swapping MITs cables into my system I went off the deep end.
7. Worked with MIT Engineers
a. By the time I evolved to the Shotgun 2s for both ICs and sw it had become quite an investment.
b. MIT Engineers worked with me to incorporate the CVT-1 sw for my MC – 240 Amps as their network boxes provided less feedback. I continue to use the Shotgun-2 IC for my Gallo S/A to the second coil of my Gallo Ref. 3.1s. I use the CVT -1 IC for my Wavelength Brick but find the Shotgun = 2 ICs a better fit for my pre-map to 240s and also to the Gallo S/A.
So here I am, more than a couple of grand into cables, when once upon a time I was happy with the DIYs.
This is a path where I started out not knowing sh!t but worked at it to learn more. Spent the time listening to live music. Committed the time and money to grow the system. Listened with an open mind. I can hear minor differences as I cycle 4 or 5 power cords through a CDP, pre-amp and sub-amp working to get to the best combination.
A very important factor here is being willing to let go of “truths”. Once JV brought the MIT cable to me I immediately let go of my affinity to my DIYs and went down the path of making my system being the best it could be. This was a fairly significant move because I really loved the idea that I could build speaker wire and ICs that out performed cables costing 10 to 100 times more. JV really helped me with the whole DIY concept.
What I now think happened is that once JV thought I was experienced enough with my system to understand it I was introduced to the MIT cable line. It was up to me to take it wherever I was going to but I never would have done it had I not first been open to listening to something aside from my DIY ICs.
How do I know that I am done with cables?
For one thing MIT has several levels of ICs from $800 to $9,000, sw from $1,500 to $37,000 and pc from $700 to $4,000 all USD. I got more out of putting my time and energy into my room itself than I could get for doubling the cost of my cables. Besides, if I ever upgraded the cables….
That is how I went about selecting cables, more or less.
|
| MW3 |
|
|
On 04/03/2012 JanVigne also posted: “Well, while we're waiting, let's add to the question. There are to this day more than a small amount of people who feel cables are all a hoax perpetrated by unsavory audio snake oil salesmen and those pure charlatans promoting voodoo nonsense. In any discussion of cables - which they typically initiate - they quickly point to those non-existent, unidentified, unknown and never really true that we all own such cables as their prime targets, the magical "$15k cables" - as proof of how right they are and how stupid the rest of us prefer to remain. Beyond capacitance and inductance, there's nothing a cable can do to alter the performance of an amplifier or speaker in their view. The pure objectivist forums are full of threads calling others "audiophoools" for believing what the subjectivists accept as fact.
Any ideas on why this might be? (Other than the pure objectivists' thrills at calling other people names, that is.)”
The subconscious is a powerful powerful resource that everyone possesses. It will protect you when necessary, guide you when you emotional conscience makes poor choices, and is like a super computer supporting you in ways that you are not aware. It can be your “inner voice” or your guiding light.
In my mid-twenties I was getting really high scores at bowling. 279, 277, 278 and 279 again. My grandfather told me to let him know when I bowled a 300. Finally I had a game where I had the first 9 strikes. When I hit the 10th strike my legs went numb. Nerves were taking control. I was worried that I would fall on my face at the foul line with the 11th ball but still threw the exact same shot as the first 10 for my 11th strike. Now the nerves really went into high gear. Here I was a 188 average bowler looking at the 12th strike for a perfect game and I could not even feel the ball in my hands. How I did not drop the ball or fall on my face was beyond me. The ball left my hand and headed down the lane towards the pins, not the exact same line or speed as the first 11 put it was heading in the right direction and avoided the gutter. It too knocked down all ten pins and within minutes I was on the phone telling my grandfather that I did it.
I later learned that the subconscious will take over for you in times of stress, emergencies, or other unknown ways.
I also could have related that once my inner voice told me to get out of the market. I was day trading at the time and was up about 90% in six months. I ignored the inner voice and lost everything. Lesson learned.
To me if someone cannot hear differences in cables it is because either they do not care about what they hear, in other words, do not listen for the musical reproduction, they have considerable hearing limitations, or ………..
they have convinced themselves that the differences are only espoused so that the snake oil salesmen / women can take their hard earned money. My point is that they have conditioned their subconscious to make all cables sound the same. The subconscious being trained in that manner will then protect the individual from the snake oil salesmen / women by insuring that no differences in cables are heard.
This would probably make more sense if I spent 20, 000 words on it but I might lose one or two of you if I attempted that.
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"What makes you say "many people" do not use live music as their reference? What are they using as a reference? How many people do you know using this reference?"
"Your comments from earlier made me say it! Where you illustrated how people responded to you when you sold audio components. And in this thread, where you mention asking at ecoustics how many people regularly attend live music performances. I'm not sure what these people use as a reference instead."
LOL! Yes, I have said that, repeatedly. I'm not arguing with you, Dan, just playing Devil's Advocate. Don't take anyone's word for anything, not even my own. Personally, I would prefer that when you come across a statement like that you spend some time thinking about what it means and, possibly, what these people would be using for a reference. Then check yourself for how that might apply to your own thinking on system building. The more you think and explore different ideas, IMO, the better off you'll be.
"IMO you are making a few assumptions that shouldn't be made at this point. Recorded direct to disc? Why is that the criteria for whether or not you should also listen to live, unamplified music? I don't get the reference to direct to disc. In your opinion, is that the only way to record a performance and have it approach the quality of a live performance?"
"No, I don't mean that it's the only way to have a recording compare to a live show. Just that it is probably the surest way. As a listener you would know for certain that the recording is faithful."
Well, unless you hapened to be at the recording session, you still wouldn't know exactly what transpired and certainly not what the recording engineers heard. I have several Dorian recordings of the Dallas Symphony Orchestra performing at the Meyerson. Dorian has for years been an "audiophile" recording company with recordings which were dedicated to the art of the recording process. They still exist today though they have taken on more the personna of Naxos which distributes recordings not typically found in the big label catalogues. Dorian recorded the Shostakovich Fifth Symphony which happens to be one of my personal favorites. Rather than carry their entire monitor system with them they borrowed amplifiers and speakers from one of their retailers in the Dallas area. That retailer happened to be a shop I had worked at and I was very familiar with the sound of the system Dorian used as monitors. Listening to that recording is not exactly what I hear when I attend the Meyerson. Yet taking into account the monitor system used to mix the initial recording, the sound of the DSO in the Meyerson is quite easily heard.
Keep in mind this is very much what Holt and HP were stating when they were advocating for a live, unamplified source which would be used as a reference. Their travels to and familiarity with several of the nation's most prestigious halls were often used as their personal references for recordings made in those venues. Should HP make a reference to a Bill Evans recording made during a set at The Village Vanguard, he not only was familiar with the venue and it's characteristic sound but he hoped others would become familiar with these locations as well. If not to the extent each reader travelled to New York for an Evans' set, then, at least, to the point where halls and clubs which had been frequently used for recordings would become familiar in their sound as captured on a recording. Just as we might find great pleasure in the idea we can call up performers we never had the opportunity to hear in a live setting so too goes the thinking with recording venues. If you cannot travel to The Royal Albert Hall, then you could travel to London by way of a familiarity with the sound of the hall on various recordings. Using your familiarity with the sound of live music, even those who had no access to a first class hall could extrapolate what was occurring when they listened to a fine recording.
"I don't know a lot about jazz, but I gather that a greater proportion of performances are acoustic as opposed to popular rock. Perhaps I am wrong on that front."
Unfortunately, all too many performers use amplification of their acoustic instruments even in the smallest venues. That doesn't mean there aren't other qualities which you can take away from contact with live, amplified music. There is just no reference for exactly how an amplified instrument should sound that is constant from performance to performance or even song to song. Hall sounds are not always consistent markers as speakers load the space differently than would a purely acoustic source. The sound of an unamplified trumpet cutting through a hall is distinctly different than the amplified version.
"Whether it be goosebumps, a chill, or something else, I guess what I'm saying is a physical reaction to what I am hearing. At a live show, is it constant? No, but it should happen somewhat frequently. It's kind of like watching a movie...you want to laugh, cry, be scared, angry, provoked in some way. Something. Not for all 2 hours, but you want it to happen at least a few times in that span of time. Otherwise you are sitting there and really, what kind of impression is the film making on you?"
I suppose that would depend on the type of film you were watching. We as Americans don't tend to get many of the foreign films which lack the BING-BANG-BOOM of the Hollywood blockbusters. But even our own independent film makers are producing concepts which are certain not to have a visceral impression occur in the viewer every seventeen minutes. They are introspective, sometimes plodding and in every way the antithesis of "Hangover II". In music ballads are ballads due to their pace and their inward glances. Ballads exist throughout modern music. Listen to J. Cash's version of "Hurt";
http://www.amazon.com/American-The-Man-Comes-Around/dp/B004GHBQCE/ref=pd_sim_m_2 and tell me what your response is to the song and the performance. Do the same for "Streets of Laredo".
One thing I have commented on at times is how music has changed over the last forty years. There are likely to be a few of us who remember American Bandstand's segment of rating a new recording. The oft-heard catch phrase became, "It has a good beat and I can dance to it." Many of us tend to forget the entirety of popular music over the decades was created as dance music. The intent was to get you up on your feet and moving. It wasn't until we got to bands such as The Cream with their extended solos and an eighteen minute version of In-a-Gadda-da-Vida that "pop" music became something you sat glued to the chair and listened to.
"I don't think I've ever heard a system where a piano sounded like another instrument. The basic characteristic sound of the piano always comes out. Just like I can tell who is singing a song (if I know the singer) on pretty much every system. Is there a system so poor that you'd think it was Keith Richards and not Mick Jagger singing a Stones song?"
Unfortunately, I have heard music reproduced by components that do not do justice to a piano or most any other instruments for that matter. My expectations of a piano are for the system to reproduce the sense of an instrument which is several feet long and, depending on the style of piano, at least a few feet high and wide. I assume a piano is sitting on the floor and not floating around without any attachment to a solid surface. My preference would be to hear a piano which sounds as if it were sitting on the floor. I would also like the tone of the instrument to suggest an instrument which exists in a real space. However, I suppose that would be a difference between what I expect vs your expectations. And, while I can be satisfied with the reproduction of a grand piano through a good SDFR speaker, I know many listeners who insist a recorded piano cannot approach life-like reproduction unless the speaker system is massively large and dynamic.
And maybe you haven't heard the constant controversy over which Beatle was singing on which song. LOL!
"But I think I can see what you are saying. Do I get more satisfaction listening to vocals or a piano or guitar on my system vs. a system that is less transparent and resolving? Yes. There is a richness of tone in the lower registers of these instruments that I did not get before I changed my speakers, that to me seems more correct and helps with achieving a "you are there" kind of feeling."
As an example of this degree of "accuracy" or transparency I happened to pick up at my local library a copy of http://www.amazon.com/Demos-Crosby-Stills-Nash/dp/B0026HB2MU. I never was a huge fan of CSN but they have several songs I enjoy. This is their demo material for each other and the record executives so these are very simple recordings done in a very basic recording style. At the time each of the performers would have been using Martin D45 dreadnought guitar. The recording captures what I would consider to be the exact nature of a Martin D45 paired with vocals which are capable of placing a performer projecting into a microphone in your room. The combination of tone and timbre which is what I would say is very close to a Martin being played in my room does not add to "the tune" so much as it completes the picture of the live event. Played through my HT system, that is all but lost.
" I agree that the choice of instrument shouldn't be glossed over and is key to the performance. I guess I am just trying to put forth an argument as to why many people do not use live music as a reference. Since those threads at ecoustics, I have paid more attention to live unamplified music. However, the average music listener (which I am still closer to than not) will not be as intimately familiar with music that they will understand what a specific piano might bring to a performance. That understanding might be required to appreciate a song on a deeper level, but I'm not sure it's required to simply enjoy listening to the song."
No, it's not required of anyone for the simple pleasure of enjoying the song. And that is what many of my clients were like when I was selling high end audio. They were average listeners who weren't after a "high end" system. They just wanted a system that was better than what they could have bought at the big box store. I certainly didn't beat them over the head with "timbre" or PRaT. They simply wanted what I was selling more than what someone else was selling and, unless they indicated they had an interest in specific qualities, I settled for "tight bass, clear mids and clean highs" as sufficient reason for selecting product "X" over product "Y" which I would have chosen.
The issue became more of an issue once they suggested they wanted to dip their toes - or jump head first - into high end audio. IMO these issues of a "reference" and a "familiarity" with live music is sort of like wanting to be a decent cook but not knowing which end of the onion you leave on for dicing. There are relatively simple guidelines which will make for a more pleasant end product. No one will enforce a rule that says you must leave the root end of the onion or that you must be intimately familiar with the character of a Steinway. It's just that the chances of success go up when you follow a few well established guides.
"However, why assemble a "high end" (read; high priced) music reproduction system if you are not wanting it to be more similar to the live event than that car radio will ever be? What exactly are you trying to say here? A finer system will more easily portray the finer details of King's playing techniques. That's a highly desireable trait in a "better" system."
"I agree. But does being able to enjoy playback on a high end system require one to have that intimate knowledge of live shows and instruments? I'd say it can only enhance your appreciation of the system, but most people who do not have this knowledge would still be able to appreciate many of the benefits of this type of system. There is no doubt that you can hear deeper into the performance...multiple voices instead of just one (as I think MW pointed out), better tone, the intricacies of what each musician is doing as smaller details of the performance are revealed. People who might not know a Yamaha from a Baldwin could still appreciate many other things, and perhaps these things will eventually lead to a curiosity to explore other music genres and attend live shows and eventually an even greater appreciation for what a good system can do."
"I'd say it can only enhance your appreciation of the system ... " I'd say it can only enhance your appreciation of the performance. The system be damned! I don't want to hear "the system".
You're sort of arguing in circles by now, Dan. No, there are no laws which state you can't do this or you can't do that with your audio system - as long as your neighbors aren't complaining. Once again, no offense but what I take away from your posts would be you aren't seeing any need for a familiarity with the character and nature of live performances - amplified or unamplified. Or how music is made by a talented artist. I would disagree, not based on any level of enjoyment of "the song" but rather based on the intent of why I would put together a better than a big box audio system.
|
| Dan |
|
|
"You're sort of arguing in circles by now, Dan. No, there are no laws which state you can't do this or you can't do that with your audio system - as long as your neighbors aren't complaining. Once again, no offense but what I take away from your posts would be you aren't seeing any need for a familiarity with the character and nature of live performances - amplified or unamplified. Or how music is made by a talented artist. I would disagree, not based on any level of enjoyment of "the song" but rather based on the intent of why I would put together a better than a big box audio system."
I believe a high end system brings more than just the character of a live performance, or insight into how music is made by an artist. There are other reasons to build such a system rather than own a lowly $200 JVC boombox.
I think enjoying the tune, and connecting to it emotionally, is still the top priority (whether you own a $300 boombox or something costing 50x that price). We've all heard expensive systems that sounded soulless. Similarly, I think audiophiles tend to get caught up in listening for this or that and lose sight of the music itself. Thus, it could be a system issue or simply the way a listener listens. This is seemingly the way companies like Linn and Naim approach system design, the musical message is most important, though I understand that they also espouse making instruments sound like they do in real life and not some warmed over representation of such.
Don't get me wrong Jan, I think to understand live music and how music is made is important. I am paying more attention to live, unamplified music for this reason, and it definitely helps with gauging whether a system sounds correct. Learning how music is made is like learning a new language, and might be harder to accomplish for someone that faces time constraints. If I could go back I would pursue music in school, which is something that didn't really interest me at the time. Nevertheless, I still hope to learn to play the guitar and with that would come learning much about how music is made.
"But even our own independent film makers are producing concepts which are certain not to have a visceral impression occur in the viewer every seventeen minutes. They are introspective, sometimes plodding and in every way the antithesis of "Hangover II"."
But even an introspective, plodding film should lead to thought within the viewer. I guess thought isn't an emotion, but the triggering of thought is curiosity, and we are curious because something interests us. If there is no investment in a movie for me as I'm watching it then I may as well stop.
"Unfortunately, I have heard music reproduced by components that do not do justice to a piano or most any other instruments for that matter. My expectations of a piano are for the system to reproduce the sense of an instrument which is several feet long and, depending on the style of piano, at least a few feet high and wide. I assume a piano is sitting on the floor and not floating around without any attachment to a solid surface. My preference would be to hear a piano which sounds as if it were sitting on the floor. I would also like the tone of the instrument to suggest an instrument which exists in a real space. However, I suppose that would be a difference between what I expect vs your expectations."
Yes, I can certainly see where you are coming from. However, this gets back to the recording. A system might very well be able to convey what you want to hear in a piano recording, but if that information isn't on the disc it won't sound the way you want it to, and that's no fault of the system's. I wonder how many popular studio recordings will convey that impression of a piano, or will studio tricks most often change the sound so that these details are lost? But hopefully it will still sound like a piano, more real than what a JVC boombox can convey, and the feeling the song is meant to impart will still come through.
More later.
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"I have developed a theory as to why folks experiment with cables.
Cables for the basis of this post mean Interconnects (ICs), Speaker Wire (sw), or Power Cords (pc). These all move in and out of your system for several reasons;
• money to burn so you endeavor to upgrade
• you change your gear and feel the need to change the cables
• you either read something or were given a recommendation and cannot resist the urge to find out for yourself
• you heard a system complementary to yours, liked the way it sounded, and recognized cables that you had not tried in your system
• you recognize that you are close to what you want from your system but are not quite there,
• or JV comes over and says 'Here try these'.”
ROTFL!!!
I guess we shouldn't even mention what Nuck did to my LS3/5a's, eh?
|
| Dan |
|
|
"In music ballads are ballads due to their pace and their inward glances. Ballads exist throughout modern music. Listen to J. Cash's version of "Hurt";
http://www.amazon.com/American-The-Man-Comes-Around/dp/B004GHBQCE/ref=pd_sim_m_2 and tell me what your response is to the song and the performance. Do the same for "Streets of Laredo"."
I have to get into Johnny Cash, I really like these songs along with one or two others I've heard in the past. I know Hurt is by Nine Inch Nails, a band that I've explored some already and am still doing.
These songs obviously do not make you want to get up and dance or even get the adrenalin flowing the way a Hollywood blockbuster would. However, there is an emotional response to the music and lyrics...sadness, despair, anger, and introspection. Cash is great at communicating this, especially in Hurt, which is a little more raw than Streets of Laredo. Hurt is first person, while SofL tells the story of another person and is more removed from the emotions, which themselves are a little less intense.
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"A system might very well be able to convey what you want to hear in a piano recording, but if that information isn't on the disc it won't sound the way you want it to, and that's no fault of the system's. I wonder how many popular studio recordings will convey that impression of a piano, or will studio tricks most often change the sound so that these details are lost?"
Obviously I can't expect a system to reproduce what is not on the source. To the contrary, I would prefer the system impose as little of itself into the reproduction process as possible. That doesn't alter my priority however, I prefer to hear a piano that sounds as if it were a real instrument existing in a real world space. Studio tricks are probably not the culprit when it comes to recording a life-like piano sound. More than anything the problems begin with the microphone placement and the number of microphones used on a single instrument. They are then complicated when the piano is set in an isolation booth the size of a small bathrom and the performer listens to themself and the rest of the players over a set of headphones. After that what occurs in the resulting stages of mastering and mixing are a crap shoot given the raw material they have to work with.
In the end though, a recording which fails to satisfy my priorities for a piano sound isn't a "reference" grade recording - when it comes to the piano. That's not too difficult to understand when we consider how few recordings should qualify as reference material. The techniques and time spent creating a reference recording will seldom be spent by the larger labels and many of the independent labels know no other way to make a recording so the task falls to smaller labels such as Dorian which due to prices cannot affford the first class, world reknowned performers or to rent the most recognizable halls. Therefore, without resorting to a short list of "audiophile" recordings, what is there to do if you are seeking a reference recording?
I think most of us can easily see areas where we can find some reference material on this disc and another aspect of the recording/performance which qualifies as good enough on another disc. If the piano sound isn't what I prefer to use as a reference, possibly the playing technique is up to the task. One from column "A" and another from column "B" and you piece together your reference library. Far better to use a dozen discs as you establish your priorities than one single disc around which you build your entire system.
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"These songs obviously do not make you want to get up and dance or even get the adrenalin flowing the way a Hollywood blockbuster would. However, there is an emotional response to the music and lyrics...sadness, despair, anger, and introspection. Cash is great at communicating this, especially in Hurt, which is a little more raw than Streets of Laredo. Hurt is first person, while SofL tells the story of another person and is more removed from the emotions, which themselves are a little less intense."
Just my opinion, but neither song would benefit from a system which reproduced those performances in a "bigger" and "more impressive" manner. At times the music demands intimacy and the ability to allow the music to speak for itself. On a good system the "bigness" of those recordings is the sense of space surrounding Cash and the juxtaposition of the small, solitary human being against the larger, imposing world. That doesn't mean the soundstage or the overall presentation should be smaller and less impressive - that last thing I would want is a teeny, tiny Johnny Cash singing those songs - but just that those broad qualifiers of "bigger" and "more impressive" are not sufficient to begin piecing together a competent system.
|
| MW3 |
|
|
Just my opinion, but neither song would benefit from a system which reproduced those performances in a "bigger" and "more impressive" manner. At times the music demands intimacy and the ability to allow the music to speak for itself. On a good system the "bigness" of those recordings is the sense of space surrounding Cash and the juxtaposition of the small, solitary human being against the larger, imposing world. That doesn't mean the soundstage or the overall presentation should be smaller and less impressive - that last thing I would want is a teeny, tiny Johnny Cash singing those songs - but just that those broad qualifiers of "bigger" and "more impressive" are not sufficient to begin piecing together a competent system.
My system reproduces these songs in a big impressive manner.
What do I mean?
“I mean that the isolation of Johnny Cash and his guitar suspend him in a space the is both above and afar and at the same time in the room with me with depth and emotion. I do not need four guitars, a bass player, drummer, tambourine man, organist, back up chorus or a full-fledged orchestra to get bigger or more impressive from my system.”
I just need to get a sense of the reality of the performance. Anybody hear The Adele at Royal Albert Hall? There is all of the above in that recording and every track delivers it in my system.
Dan,I believe that JV is simply saying that building a kit is not about an instrument reproduction, the particular female or male vocal, the Handle’s Messiah or GNR Welcome to the Jungle. It is about all of the above.
I am able to get an emotional connection to whatever music inspires me, and others will get the same from my kit because their blood flow is different than mine.
I can get “goosies” listening to American Idol in my family room set up which is not even 10% of my main kit, but it really is as Dan suggests, all about what the presentation gives you. I doubt if I would get more “goosies” if I listened to Idol on my main system but I have no doubt that I appreciate so much more of what I am hearing from my main system to anything else. I rather not listen to MP3 or my car radio because it pales to what I want to get out of my music. No I am not being a snob, disagree as you may, I really have no interest in listening to a reproduction that cannot reach the levels of what I have worked for and attained with my kit. Idol aside.
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"Dan,I believe that JV is simply saying that building a kit is not about an instrument reproduction, the particular female or male vocal, the Handle’s Messiah or GNR Welcome to the Jungle. It is about all of the above."
Here's what I believe I was trying to say, there are very few single recordings which could serve as a high quality reference disc for any system. There are, to be certain, high quality recordings which exist in nearly every musical genre and they should be a part of your music library as you build a system. However, the trap of such recordings is; first, that you begin to listen to these discs solely because they make your system sound a certain way that you find favorable. That tends to lead you towards a system that is, as Mike describes, tailored to specific discs and which misses the broader ability of a system to find the music in a wide range of recordings. Secondly, the concept of a "reference" disc has been narrowed down as recording styles favor more and more the utility of post production work as a cost saving device to the record label. Now we are seeing one hundred and sixty eight channel mixers being used to assemble recordings which have parts taken from performers across the globe and who have communicated by way of the internet's ability to send data from this location to that location and back to yet another location. None of this is bad as it makes available music which would probably have been constructed no other way. But, obviously, such recordings can only represent the concept of a group playing together by the assemblage of those disparate parts within the studio workshop. If I have a recording of Frank Sinatra performing a duet with Adelle, what exactly am I expecting from that recording? You cannot make a critical judgement regarding such values as imaging and soundstage - to mention just the two most idealized examples - when bits and pieces are assembled solely within a mixing board. Yes, my system does a very nice job of presenting the opening chords of a guitar deep, deep beyond my listening room walls. But as the recording progresses, it becomes apparent that guitar was direct injected into the mixing board and the effect of the deep soundstage was merely a trick of the studio technicians. On the other hand, the Telarc recording of "Fanfare for the Common Man" presents a tympani and a humongous bass drum which do actually exist at the furthest back reaches of a symphony stage. I know how a symphony is likely to be arranged for this composition and have heard drums played from that location on numerous occasions, therefore, I have a good reference for not only how the drum should be placed on the stage but also for how the "thwack" of the drum reverberates and expands as the pressure wave travels toward my listening position. I consider the Telarc recording to be a very good reference for staging given the numerous instruments which must also appear as they would in a live performance. It is also a very good recording for judging the impact and the aftermath of deep bass through my system and room. The guitar recording is fun to listen to after I have used the Telarc disc to establish the best set up of my system and room but it is not useful as a reference for how an electric guitar should sound twenty feet away from my listening chair. There are, however, other aspects and other instruments within the guitar recording which can be used to make less critical judgements. My job is to identify them as such and ignore the rest.
Is my system set up about one particular male voice? To an extent, yes, in that I make my most critical judgements through the range of the human voice. It is the one instrument with which each of us should have the greatest familiarity since we are around the human voice almost constantly. Therefore, I begin my set up and my selections based on one male voice. If I can't get that one voice to sound convincingly real, then I know I have nowhere to go with that set up or selection of equipment. "Convincingly real" exists on a handful of recordings and not all over the place. Through experience with the references I have available, I know which discs can be useful and which are reserved strictly for pleasure. Once that baseline of proper tone and timbre has been established with that one voice, I can move forward to make the same value judgements using other reference vocals. What am I hearing overall in voices? I'm hearing inflections which convey the artists' intent and I'm listening for the placement of the note in relation to the timing of the composition. Is the vocalist placing their starting point for articulation on, before or behind the actual beat of the music? Each distinct placement will affect the feel of the performance. Are they bending certain notes to create tension, release and movement within the music? How are they communicating with the other performers to achieve a "feeling" for the piece? Refining the set up allows me to listen to how a performer is using the microphone and how they are moving around the mic position. Does the performer appear to be a life sized image of a human being or is the apparent shape of the vocalist truncated to show only the upper half of their body? Does the performer appear to be stooping down low or standing too high in space? I'm not so concerned with whether I hear lips smacking as I am that I can perceive the vocalist moving their voice around in their head, their throat, their chest in order to place the note forward or beneath their literal position in the image. What effect is the vocalist trying to achieve by using the techniques a talented performer has learned as their "instrument". Is the effect rendered effectively by the system or is it just a failure of the performer to pull off what they have attempted? If the attempt was a failure, what alternatives do they attempt next time through? Are the other musicians on stage sounding too "busy" and detracting from the main event? Is the density of the entire recording complementing or taking away from the vocalist? Can you separate out those bits and pieces, the licks and riffs in the music, which tickle the effect of the music's main line and forward movement? Or are they obstructed by the goings on of the system? And, yes, am I hearing back up vocalists who stand out as three (or thirty) individuals grouped around one single microphone? Or, is the group captured by more than one microphone giving each voice or each section of the group their own presence?
If this is your idea of "listening more deeply into the recording", then I agree and that is why I have assembled a better than mass market system. Go do yourself a favor and spend a few minutes listening to a lesser system at a friend's house or in a store to hear just what is missing from the music and remind yourself what you have accomplished with your own system. Such an experience can serve as the mortar for the foundation you must first construct in a system.
I'm certainly not trying to criticize Dan for what he believes are important values. If those are his only values, that the system just allow him to listen more deeply and to sound bigger and more impressive, then he at least has a start on priorities. That's more than most of my customers had when they first walked into my store. However, those broad categories of Dan's are just that, too broad to really be effective in narrowing down where you want to head in your system. Now, what normally happens is we don't actually know what we should be pursuing until we hear a system reproduce a quality we've not had before. Unless we have live music to use as our reference. Then the response to achieving a new value should go from one of, "OH, WOW!" to one of, "Ah, yes."
Mike, I would guess you have several values you now appreciate which were not at all on your list of priorities when I first heard your system on the long wall of your room. And as the system has evolved, what have you been seeking? I remember the conversations which went something like, "I did this and then I heard that." But, were you seeking that quality before you "did this"? Or, did that only become a priority once you'd experienced your system exhibiting that level of transparency to the source? Happenstance is great but planning is, IMO, far more productive. Why do you suppose I came over and said, "Now try this?"
Let's use for the moment an analogy which as existed with audio for decades. And, it too is an experience which has been slowly either degraded or improved depending on your perspective. When I first picked up a 35mm camera as a hobby, there were no autofocus designs. I had to carry a light meter and take readings before I could guesstimate which F-stop and lens speed I thought would provide the desired result. With analog photography the best results were most often acquired through repetition and experimentation. Take a half dozen shots of the same flower or the same landscape and compare the results against what I actually saw through the lens and what I wanted to see in the finished photo. Make notes and think about which lens settings and which analog films provided the best results to make repeating those results possible. Fujifilm gave different results than did Kodachrome and was therefore more well suited to a certain type of photography. Was I after a more accurate representation or was I trying to achieve a more pleasing photo? How could I manipulate the camera to provide the desired results? If I opened the aperture of the lens I got this result. If I increased the lens speed I got that result. I could use the tools provided by the camera to focus attention on specific areas of the finished photo or I could ignore those tools and have results not really much better than a far less expensive camera or a photo taken by someone who had less refined goals. I had in my mind's eye not only the actual object I wanted to capture on film but also the reference materials of the great photographers who had been through the same process I was learning to master. Using their examples I could refine my goals to greater and greater degrees of understanding of what was possible from a camera and a lens. Through experimentation and learning from others I got an idea of what was possible and what was not a good idea to try. My equipment improved as I found a need for creating something I could not capture with my present gear but only after I had convinced myself the results warranted new equipment. I learned about the desirable values in a lens and a camera, which components offered the results I was seeking and how to use the equipment to gain those better results. At that point it was obvious picture taking was one thing and photography was yet another. Snapshots could be had with a $50 camera while photos would require an investment of money, time and effort. In the end I took that hobby as far as I desired to go, said that was the point I had wanted to reach and I didn't need to pursue more due to the investment required to proceed.
My present camera body now has enough processing power in its microchips to allow me to press one button for a "picture" of a flower. Another button gets me an image of a landscape or another setting does a moving target such as a bicyclist or speeding car - bicyclists and speeding cars are favorites of the marketing departments of the camera companies since they represent numerous failures for the amateur photographer. My camera body is several years old now and yet it still has more "parameters" than I care to even wade through. I can flip a switch in the menu and create an "old timey" sienna colored photo. Or I can juice up all the colors and place black outlines around each major object in the len's view to create what, at first glance, appears to be a super sharp focus - better even than reality. It's remarkable how much I can do with my new/old camera body and what's really remarkable is most of the features the camera offers aren't things I would not have thought to do on my own just by considering what I was seeing through the camera's viewfinder or looking at what past masters had created. They are values which I would never have come up with on my own and especially not by using my own references to achieve the results I thought to be my own priorities.
And that's where I see a good number of younger, still learning the process audiophiles existing today. They are using tools which are not truly meant for capturing what is in front of them or what their references should be. Instead they are using preset parameters to achieve what they feel is a good result despite the fact their results look very much like everyone else's results and none of them have a desire to capture the essence of the reality which existed in their viewfinder. The essence of what makes a single flower more attractive than another flower. Too many users, IMO, are relying on what the gear can do for them rather than using the gear to achieve a truly unique result which is based upon their desire for a photograph rather than a snapshot. In reality the sky is never quite so blue, the flower never quite stood out so much from the background and the landscape never had that much depth of field. So this becomes an issue of whether they prefer to establish those priorities which take them back to why someone such as myself was first attracted to photography. Are they willing to work and to invest time and effort into creating something unique to their references and their preferences or are they content to have a very nice camera that provides results which are commiserate with a very nice camera's price tag? Are they willing to dig a little deeper than they did the last time they used their camera? Or, are they content to rest with having a nice camera? If they wish to have the former, they'll need to establish some priorities which are not found in the preset parameters of the camera body and they'll need to put the camera on manual settings and begin the learn how to achieve those same priorities which everyone before them had to learn.
We all seek our own degree of refinement and where I stopped with my camera isn't nearly where the shooter using a 4X5 range finder camera body has gone. That's fine with me, I have the level of enjoyment I have sought with my camera. To proceed further would require an even larger expenditure of money, time and effort - especially money - and it isn't that important to me to have the ultimate in refinement in my photography. That doesn't mean I am not aware of what it would take - the references and the priorities to have the next level of refinement - to make that next step. Or that I haven't attempted to achieve those results from the equipment I can afford. I've experienced the results and I find them impressive. And, in some ways, knowing what is available and deciding I'm happy with what I have achieved is satisfying to me.
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"It's remarkable how much I can do with my new/old camera body and what's really remarkable is most of the features the camera offers aren't things I would not have thought to do on my own just by considering what I was seeing through the camera's viewfinder or looking at what past masters had created. They are values which I would never have come up with on my own and especially not by using my own references to achieve the results I thought to be my own priorities."
I have a double negative there that might be confusing. "It's remarkable how much I can do with my new/old camera body and what's really remarkable is most of the features the camera offers aren't things I would not have thought to do on my own just by considering what I was seeing through the camera's viewfinder or looking at what past masters had created", SHOULD READ, "It's remarkable how much I can do with my new/old camera body and what's really remarkable is most of the features the camera offers ARE things I would not have thought to do on my own just by considering what I was seeing through the camera's viewfinder or looking at what past masters had created."
My camera does too much and what it can do is often, IMO, to the negative side of a desirable feature. It has a tendency to play to the less ambitious user. If my desire is to capture the depth of field in a shot depicting rows of flowers, then I prefer the camera be able to display the subtle shadings of light and dark to portray a three dimensional scene. I do not want my camera to outline each individual flower with black. In other words, the functioning of the camera - the ability to create pleasing but not great results with little to no effort - can get in the way of using the camera as a purely manual device in which I get to control the results. This, however, is where we are at with many modern appliances and components. Understanding how and why each photographic effect is created is, to me, very important and it forms the basis for the art of photography. Turning the job over to an integrated chip which makes all the adjustments for me and which makes all adjustments for similar situations identically to each adjustment before and after the next and the last are to me useless features. (Sort of like having 500 watts when I only really need two. Give me two very excellent watts and keep the rest.) The photographic result is reflected in the effort put forth and taking away the effort simply does not provide similar results.
"They are values which I would never have come up with on my own and especially not by using my own references to achieve the results I thought to be my own priorities."
If you are just now putting together your system, use it to make pleasing pictures for yourself. When you are ready, and only if you are ready, then take the next step toward going beyond the merely pleasant and working at getting the best possible from your equipment. The ways to refine what you are achieving are well laid out by others who have done this before you. But the results will require some effort. Only you can decide where your stopping point will be.
|
| JanVigne |
|
|
"Going back to making the best out of your system, ... will be playing with speaker placement a bit this coming weekend using the WASP ( I think thats what its called) speaker placement writeup you have posted previous."
How did your experiments work out, Nick? What successes and what not so greats did you come across?
|
|
| Post Reply | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
|
