|
Posted by drdna on
01-16-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Experimenting with the new 2A3 tubes has been a very interesting experience. It has given me insight into more specifically exactly what I am looking for in the stereo sounds, which I associate with the Sound.
The most we can ask for is to accurately reproduce exactly the original two stereo signals. It never happens. We can improve the result by reducing distortions, improving accuracy of system to reproduce the original acoustic waveform (attack, decay, etc), and improving frequency response.
Sometimes there are false results. For example, boosting the highs can seem like an increased accuracy, but it is not.
Anyway, I find that with my system, even very small changes -- as little as changing a vacuum tube, and the magic is lost. Is it crazy to say this? Of course, the stereo for the most part is still making a very accurate reproduction. It is a tiny element that is lost. But it is like the difference between a beautiful woman who looks past you or looks at you and smiles. Only a small change, but it seems to make a big difference.
Now, what I have noticed is this. I would describe it as a gentle, natural softness without dullness or sluggishness. It is a sweetness without lushness or liquidity. It is an accuracy without hardness or restriction. When the conditions are met, the sounds snap to focus and the Sound is revealed. It is the joy of the experience and there is no ability nor need to think about soundstage or any audiophile concerns. These are fulfilled, but the focus shifts to the Sound.
Does anyone also experience this? If so, when have you found this in your system?
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-18-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  drdna wrote: | | Experimenting with the new 2A3 tubes has been a very interesting experience. It has given me insight into more specifically exactly what I am looking for in the stereo sounds, which I associate with the Sound.
The most we can ask for is to accurately reproduce exactly the original two stereo signals. It never happens. We can improve the result by reducing distortions, improving accuracy of system to reproduce the original acoustic waveform (attack, decay, etc), and improving frequency response. |
|
I am not sure if you stress the words “sound” or the word “stereo”. I do not have anything to do with mono but properly implemented stereo is absolutely wonderful and I love Take a little portable mono microphone, attach it to you head, feed it to a pair headphones and walk in city. Then do the same with a pair of microphones each feeding own headphone. I would say that with recording of music the difference would be even more prolific. We had this conversion before and I remember that you expressed some luck of appreciation of stereo. I disagree and I like the new opportunities that stereo allow very much.
| drdna wrote: | | Anyway, I find that with my system, even very small changes -- as little as changing a vacuum tube, and the magic is lost. Is it crazy to say this? Of course, the stereo for the most part is still making a very accurate reproduction. It is a tiny element that is lost. But it is like the difference between a beautiful woman who looks past you or looks at you and smiles. Only a small change, but it seems to make a big difference. |
|
Again do you mean that the “magic of sound is lost” or the “magic of good stereo is lost”? Is it the problem that you report with stereo or with sound generally? Also, I am sorry but changing a vacuum tube is not “even very small change”, particularly in your case when you use DHT.
| drdna wrote: | | Now, what I have noticed is this. I would describe it as a gentle, natural softness without dullness or sluggishness. It is a sweetness without lushness or liquidity. It is an accuracy without hardness or restriction. When the conditions are met, the sounds snap to focus and the Sound is revealed. It is the joy of the experience and there is no ability nor need to think about soundstage or any audiophile concerns. These are fulfilled, but the focus shifts to the Sound.
Does anyone also experience this? If so, when have you found this in your system? |
|
Listening what you are saying I wonder of is it possible that you in fact are taking about a very fine balance of HF in your playback? Just for a sake of experiment: when you feel that the “conditions are not met” anymore and you begin to have problems then can you put one or two sheets of very thin (the chipset one) toilet paper around your tweeters? It would be interesting what you feel it will do with what you describe.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by drdna on
01-18-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d | Romy the Cat wrote: | | I am not sure if you stress the words “sound” or the word “stereo”. I do not have anything to do with mono but properly implemented stereo is absolutely wonderful and I love Take a little portable mono microphone, attach it to you head, feed it to a pair headphones and walk in city. Then do the same with a pair of microphones each feeding own headphone. I would say that with recording of music the difference would be even more prolific. We had this conversion before and I remember that you expressed some luck of appreciation of stereo. I disagree and I like the new opportunities that stereo allow very much. |
|
Oh, I agree. I do this with binaural microphones that can be mounted on sunglasses and record live concerts this way sometimes. The sound is wonderful. I do not say that I don't like stereo. Most of my albums are in stereo and it is wonderful. What I have said before is that there is something very special about the early mono recordings that gives me in the sound more connectedness to the composition and artist in many cases.
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | Again do you mean that the “magic of sound is lost” or the “magic of good stereo is lost”? Is it the problem that you report with stereo or with sound generally? |
|
This occurs with both stereo and mono recordings.
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | Also, I am sorry but changing a vacuum tube is not “even very small change”, particularly in your case when you use DHT. |
|
I guess so, huh.
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | Listening what you are saying I wonder of is it possible that you in fact are taking about a very fine balance of HF in your playback? Just for a sake of experiment: when you feel that the “conditions are not met” anymore and you begin to have problems then can you put one or two sheets of very thin (the chipset one) toilet paper around your tweeters? It would be interesting what you feel it will do with what you describe. |
|
Well, I tried this. Interesting, the magic does not exactly return, but the sound is better. I think the issue has something to do with the HF being properly done. The tweeter does 10-20kHz, I think. Hm.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
01-18-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Adrian, I have alternately revelled in and anguished over this for some time now, the lynch pin for me being the electricity. Yes, I can generally hear any change I make to the system, but it is consistently the quality of the electricity that metes outs the Magic, such as it may be.
I think I wrote some stuff about a recent session I had when everything clicked, and it actually obviated differences in IC and, I presume, much else, as well. This particular Good Electricity session lasted long enough that I was also able to get some insight into system shortcomings, along with some pretty specific ideas about what I want to do about them.
Regarding your HF: Do you use a naked ribbon over 10k? If the PP2000 has worked for you, you might want to try it.
Good parts and Good Electricity nothwithstanding, sources may yet be an issue. I have been pondering which system parameters could do with what sort of adjustments in order to adapt to/make the most of sources, with their various and sundry weirdnesses and built-in limitations.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by drdna on
01-18-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d | Paul S wrote: | | Regarding your HF: Do you use a naked ribbon over 10k? If the PP2000 has worked for you, you might want to try it. |
|
Well, I will try the PP2000 after I have finished evaluating the new 2A3 tubes. The EdgarHorn Titans use a horn tweeter over 10k; however, it is somewhat lacking in the ability to correctly present the HF, compared to other tweeters I have used. Maybe the next thing is to try a ribbon instead. Adrian
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-18-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d You might change your mind after you put the PP2000 into the game. Anyhow, I do not know what Bruce did with his Titans tweeter; I do not even remember it they are in time-aligned position. The EdgarHorn Titans uses Fane ST-5022 bullet tweeter. I had them and I did not particularly care as about them, I think there are many better horn tweeters. Still, I once I heard Titans and they all together were very fine, with no problems of any kind in tweeter department. (I only once heard older Titans where they were OK, other times they were not good).
I would encourage you do not consider changing tweeters at this point. The PP2000 will have unstable in HF for a first 2 weeks, plus you have many new tubes. Try the “sit down test” from 1M – this will give you an idea if you tweeter is good match for you MF. Also, use only, let say, left channel and then use the amp from right channel to drive the tweeter with own dedicated amp. You might use the same passive filer as you have now but you will be able to change tweeter loading by the amp’s taps. This would allow to wary the tweeter’s sound to a large degree.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by drdna on
01-18-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d | Romy the Cat wrote: | | You might change your mind after you put the PP2000 into the game. Anyhow, I do not know what Bruce did with his Titans tweeter; I do not even remember it they are in time-aligned position. The EdgarHorn Titans uses Fane ST-5022 bullet tweeter. I had them and I did not particularly care as about them, I think there are many better horn tweeters. Still, I once I heard Titans and they all together were very fine, with no problems of any kind in tweeter department. |
|
The tweeters are time-aligned. I agree that there are better tweeters available, but I have not been able to point to anything that the Titans tweeters are doing wrong, they do not add "sweetness" coloration like some dome tweeters, instead acting as a mostly neutral transducer.
| Romy the Cat wrote: | | I would encourage you do not consider changing tweeters at this point. The PP2000 will have unstable in HF for a first 2 weeks, plus you have many new tubes. |
|
Everything will go back to the old configuration before the PP2000 is introduced, to avoid any confusion. It will be very interesting.
I will post the summary of my results with the tubes before I start that.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Posted by drdna on
01-22-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d | Romy the Cat wrote: | | Listening what you are saying I wonder of is it possible that you in fact are taking about a very fine balance of HF in your playback? Just for a sake of experiment: when you feel that the “conditions are not met” anymore and you begin to have problems then can you put one or two sheets of very thin (the chipset one) toilet paper around your tweeters? It would be interesting what you feel it will do with what you describe. |
|
After doing this experiment, it has become clear that I cannot continue to live without a RTA. I have just purchased a Beringer DEQ2496 RTA and equalizer. I do not expect it to make great sound, but it will be very educational to learn about hearing specific defects in frequency spectrum.
If only I had also a tool to adjust independently the amount of harmonic distortions and also even the amount of attack/decay envelope accuracy, then it would be perfect.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Posted by scooter on
01-22-2009
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d I experimented with a DEQ2496 on and off for about 6 months, and had a love-hate relationship with the unit. I eventually dumped the machine. The unit has a ton of features and in someways makes conceptual sense, in someways does not make practical sense.
Your experience would be interesting to hear about. One thing we will agree with from the start is that the graphics on the machine were designed with the 12-year old customer in mind.
My experience in a nutshell:
* I found the DEQ left a veiled sound in my system. At first I thought the veiling was due to mediocre quality cables, but using the physical circuitry bypass switch on the DEQ led me to believe that the real problem was the DEQ circuitry
* I tried using the DEQ purely as a DAC for my CD transport and felt the DAC was disappointing, even for a $300 unit. That made me wonder about the digital processing for the EQ functions
* Some argue that using EQ for room correction is futile for scientific reasons but you will come to your own conclusions there
* There is no question that the RTA for sub 100hz frequencies helped me integrate a subwoofer via placement and volume (for a given listening position). It was a valuable and fun experience to see what I was hearing. The system sounded awful with a flat EQ curve and there are all types of house curves discussed on line. Romy has some comments of interest on this site as well. The DEQ did not seem to veil the sound of my sub although I am sure the added processing knocked the sub out of phase but that can be dealt with
* A lot of people argue that using EQ for higher frequencies is a fool's game. With my good mains (which have a huge "sweet spot") the RTA was worthless. For some reason, with a pair of mediocre mains (which have a 6" sweet spot and are a bit colored), I thought the RTA did an impressive job of opening the soundstage, improving imaging, etc. as long as I sat in exactly the same spot the microphone was placed. I don't understand why the sound improved with one set of speakers but it is what it is
* I had fun using the PEQ to compensate for some of the mixing work done by deaf recording engineers
* The dynamic EQ function is a blast! At low volumes, human hearing is inefficient so certain low frequencies need to be boosted as volume is decreased. Check out Fig 3 in US Patent 7171010 for an interesting graph of how a modern curve might look. You can easily program that into your DEQ and you will note how much better your system sounds at low volumes; the difference was huge. I really miss that feature!
* I found understanding the impact of sound over the time dimension to be a worthwhile exercise, especially if you are considering using EQ at the lower frequencies. You can not do that with your DEQ but you can use your Behringer mic + software available for free on the internet to see that third dimension. It will help with speaker placement; you can determine the impact of EQ and acoustic treatments on decaying sound over time
Good luck
|
|