| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » Audio system: my path to dynamics (10 posts, 1 page)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  High End Audio and musical content...  Design decisions for different music....  Playback Listening  Forum     8  73474  06-01-2006
  »  New  High-End Audio Topologies and Higher-End listening obje..  Whole other subject.....  Playback Listening  Forum     1  1008  09-04-2024
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,173
Joined on 05-28-2004
Post #: 1
Post ID: 27575
Reply to: 27575
Audio system: my path to dynamics


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 358
Joined on 02-11-2009
Post #: 2
Post ID: 27576
Reply to: 27575
Thank you for video
Romy, Thank you for descriptions and uploading this video.

www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,666
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 3
Post ID: 27577
Reply to: 27575
3,600 Hours...
People might want to put the  "6 months" Romy dropped into perspective here, being sure to include the "20 hours per day" part. Using this "formula", if someone has 2 hrs/week for sharply-focused, applied listening and "system adjusting", they're looking at closer to 35 years. No wonder people roll their eyes back in their heads and go to the salons! And Romy did not mention the constant evolution of Musical Taste (and other "temporal variables"), ie, the Moving Target! Don't worry, I'm just messing around. Best case, hearing evolves and "progress becomes exponential", or something like that. The one thing that does not change over time is, one either hears something or one doesn't. Someone else might turn/tune ones attention, but in the end it is not possible to tune for what isn't heard, whether dynamics or the "related issues" Romy deftly touches on. This is one of many reasons why "copying someone else's system" NEVER results in the same sound, which takes us back, full circle, to Personal Sound, even when discussing objective matters, like topographic capabilities and related tendencies. For our purposes here, this is a sort of "guided tour" through the thinking and the trial and error processes behind a system that (ultimately) "works". IMO, to take this on faith and actually build it would be its own monumental journey, and no way to get through it without learning A LOT.

Paul S
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 454
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 4
Post ID: 27578
Reply to: 27575
Photography may provide the explanation...
I used to sell Minolta, Pentax and Hasselblad. I own a Leica M4 and a Minolta CLE. The CLE and the M4 had the same bayonet mount and I often compared them and their lenses. The reproduction of color from the Minolta lens, was best on a sunny day (something typical for Japan). Here it produced its maximum color dynamics and its highest color density. The Leica lens gave its best on a cloudy day with diffuse light (something typical for Germany). The Leica lens was better in almost every respect - including the focus slightly to the left and right of "perfect" - a technique that was taught in the day. With the Minolta, slight defocussing generally reduced contrast and color density. Everything was less interesting. With the Leica, there did not seem to be a connection between focus and contrast/density. Your attention was directed to something else in the picture.
When taking pictures with the Hasselblad, it was like the Leica - but on steroids. The artistic ability to steer the viewers point of interest was INCREDIBLE.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,173
Joined on 05-28-2004
Post #: 5
Post ID: 27581
Reply to: 27578
I was not taking about it for 37 years...
Hasselblad used the very same Western Carl Zeiss optics at that time. I know Hasselblad optics, but I do not particularly feel that CF Zeiss should be better than Zeiss lenses for Leica rangefinder cameras. Leicas were 24x35 vs Hasselblad 60x60; you can’t compare them. Theoretically, Hasselblad’s square format is more optimized for a circular focal window, but I could argue that on the perpendicular window, a lens works more by the center on the short side.  The specification for 35mm Lense was much more rigid. I remember correctly the 35mm lenses we calibrated for 0.01 mm and the 60mm lens for 0.05mm. One way or another, you can't compare the results from 35mm and 60 mm formats; they are just different species.

Anyhow, if you appreciate what Western Carl Zeiss with on Leicas and Hasselblads, then you will be shocked at what they did at the end of the 30s. They are not “better” lenses, but they have very different characters and cultures of image. The post-war lenses were different, more than what we are accustomed to today. It is a separate conversation as to why, and there are multiple theories about it, which are obviously out of the scope of this site.

Leika3.jpg


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-01-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,173
Joined on 05-28-2004
Post #: 6
Post ID: 27582
Reply to: 27575
A continuation to the clip above...


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-11-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 358
Joined on 02-11-2009
Post #: 7
Post ID: 27587
Reply to: 27582
Dynamic , Harmonic , Transparency , Image
Romy, Thank you for very interesting Videos. 
My English is not good so if you see any wrong thing please let me know.

I think there are some difference between your experience vs other audiophiles (like me) experience.Actually I never designed/build any loudspeaker or amplifier so what I do is not voicing a complex amp/speaker system and I just listen to different amp/speaker systems.It means you are like machine code (assembly) programmer and you have access to most basic elements but other audiophiles are like MATLAB programmer.I was absent in your audio journey so I have no idea about your subjective listening experience and also your countless decisions when you designed/build and voiced Macondo/Melquiades project.I am just an audiophile who listen to different audio systems and share his ideas about the sound. You can shape the sound so much better because you have access to machine codes. I think the most important/challenging part of an audio playback is amplifier/speaker and other equipments like transport, dac, pre, cables are beyond that.  

I have said “dynamics” is the key for advancing playback but I did not say wrong dynamics is the key for better sound.
Ac tually the meaning of “dynamics” to me is not just wider dynamic range, I think we can look at “dynamics” in each frequency range: bass, midbass, mid, upper mid and high. In each frequency zone I can define dynamic as 1- macro dynamic (like wider dynamic range, less compress/easy breathe, fast jump/transient, slow decay, pure music energy, pace and right flow like wider and more calm river) and 2- micro dynamics and also 3- dynamic rightness.
The example about 3-dynamic rightness is digital sharp filters in dacs (time domain overshoot and ringing) or ported bass topology, in my idea those are wrong dynamics. The dynamic behaviour should not change in different frequency area for example ribbon tweeters are not similar to dynamic drivers in midrange. The example about killing micro dynamics is like using ac filters or virtual grounds or so much filtering is psu. The example about macro dynamics is 6way horn vs 2way dynamic driver speaker. Multi channel amping is also give us better macro dynamics. There are some amplifier and speaker manufactures that claim their equipments are very fast and dynamic, yes some of them are fast but their dynamic shape is not correct, for example MSW or Ribbons are fast but they do not give me proper dynamics. Dynamic quality/rightness is important. If you changed the transformer ratio to decrease the load (less amplifier current / higher speaker impedance) and you get faster dynamics it does not mean the dynamic was ok. Fast jump slow decay is the proper shape of dynamics not fast jump/fast decay. Boomy bass, zippy high, puffy sound are not proper dynamics.
I did not listen to your playback but I guess the 95% priority of you system is “proper dynamics” , you choosed high efficiency horn + DSET topology + high current solidstate pre + purepower 3000 + avoiding ac filters + 6way not 2way + … You even not used any tube/choke in DAC or Pre. All of those equipments have highest dynamic so  I think you just trade off 5% dynamics for better musical experience not more. Am I wrong? Why I hate most modern expensive playbacks? Because they trade off over 50% dynamics, those are dead sounding playbacks.
About Tone , harmonics, Musicality : I think tone or harmonics are not equal to musicality (our reaction to music experience not the sound) but my reaction to the sound is more related to harmonics so I use these terms as one but it is better to separate them.
About transparency, contrast, real sound : I think transparency is equal to have more real sound, it is equal to get more information from records and the proper method of judging “transparency” is the “comparison by contrast method”. More transparent playback shows more contrast between different music albums, More transparent playback shows more contrast between different transports/dacs…
A transparent system has less coloration and can play all types of music very well. If the system is very impressive just for very limited types of music it means it is not transparent.
I think sometimes we trade off transparency for more musicality specially when we have many awful digital records. You may prefer less transparent transports like TL1 to TL0 3.0 .
About Wilson speakers: Big wilsons was very dynamic in two series : Alexandria X2 series 1  Alexandria X2 series 2
I did not listen to old WAMM but I think old WAMM speaker is very dynamic. Wilson audio decreased efficiency more than 7db after 2010 so I think new big wilsons like XVX and Alexx V are not as dynamic as old big wilsons.  I did not have new WAMM but My friend listened to New WAMM and he think it needs power. I think wilson decreased efficiency to sell more because most audiophiles prefer those type of sound. I had wilson alexandria x2 series 1 and it was very dynamic. I think it is not more dynamic than good horns but it was close. I also think dynamic rightness of my alexandria was not 100% perfect. There was some issue there but overally X2 series 1 was very good. Finally I think no dynamic driver speaker can outperform good horns in this market. Now I know two good dynamic driver speaker in this market that are better than new big wilsons.
About DPOLS and perfect electricity quality : Romy, do you think you will change the setting (camera zone) if you voice your system in DPOLS ? I guess your answer is yes.
Romy, do you think you will change the setting (camera zone) if you voice your system in perfect electricity ? I guess your answer is yes.
Perfect dynamics: I think the bass is very important for perfect dynamics. Extended proper bass is the key for perfect dynamics. It is very hard to have perfect bass.
Finally I think music is energy so the key for advancing playback is highest proper dynamics. Proper dynamics is more important than other aspects of the sound. 


Amir

www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
09-11-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,173
Joined on 05-28-2004
Post #: 8
Post ID: 27589
Reply to: 27587
I keep fantasizing...

I am not Wilson specialist, and I do not follow what they do after 2010. I know well Grand Slams and first Alexandria. They were fine in term of Dynamics, and I am talking as a  horn person. Even next level with one channel left, whatever name it was where white pushing envelope in terms of Dynamics. Any lower models our ordinary club and for whatever reason they did not apply the same dynamic tricks to smaller speakers. I have absolutely no knowledge how they did it but only because of that they deserve to be very distinctive from any other manufacturers. To accomplish this dynamic on a driver's which are generally 92-94 db sensitive I think they deserved applause. 


Regarding dominance of Dynamics above anything else. I think this time you will change your mind. I think you are already changing it because you recognizing some time Dynamics might be too much, I'm talking with you switched from tl0 to tl1. I think it was the wrong move and it's only indicate that you had bad DAC. Tl0 cannot work this aggressive face and most of them are. However you clearly understood that tl0 clearly shred CDs apart and do not produce holistic musical sound. You went to a significantly more melow tl1. Yes, you accomplished your desirable dynamic balance but you lost ritm and bass. There is no other transport out there that can stand up against tl0 in term of ritm... I for years having this wet dream fantasy that I find some kind of $30 CD player is that food accidentally as a transport do something similar to tl0. I keep fantasizing....



"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-12-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,666
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 9
Post ID: 27591
Reply to: 27587
"LOI"
Who remembers the old Linn idea, "LOI"? If I recall, Linn said it would help Linn product users avoid "loss of information". This seems like a good idea to me, given the information in question is critical to the (re)production of Music at home. In the case of "front ends", I have tried for many years to get as much information off records and CDs as I could, which has resulted in recordings that sound like recordings. And who wants this? Speaking only from my own experience, I found I had to cross this particular Rubicon before I could begin to mine the Music that's in the recordings I have used. I think my results depend on starting out with "more detail than I can use" and then "shifting the focus", as Romy described, until the Music comes to the fore. I have opined before that softening/limiting one's source(s) is a popular/common way to deal with sonic problems; but I know from experience that there are topological ways to deal with "source issues" that better retain "critical detail". I particularly include speakers and phono cartridges here, but it extends to CD playback, as well. I do believe in the idea of "exaggerated irrelevance", such as we find with SACD. But I have had good luck with increasing clarity in order to liberate detail and dynamics, alike, so I know it can be done. By "increasing clarity" I guess I mean a sort of doubling down on dynamics and detail. I hope that makes sense.

Paul S
09-18-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Amir
Iran Tehran
Posts 358
Joined on 02-11-2009
Post #: 10
Post ID: 27595
Reply to: 27589
DAC Time domain response
 Romy the Cat wrote:

Regarding dominance of Dynamics above anything else. I think this time you will change your mind. I think you are already changing it because you recognizing some time Dynamics might be too much, I'm talking with you switched from tl0 to tl1. I think it was the wrong move and it's only indicate that you had bad DAC. Tl0 cannot work this aggressive face and most of them are. However you clearly understood that tl0 clearly shred CDs apart and do not produce holistic musical sound. You went to a significantly more melow tl1. Yes, you accomplished your desirable dynamic balance but you lost ritm and bass. There is no other transport out there that can stand up against tl0 in term of ritm... I for years having this wet dream fantasy that I find some kind of $30 CD player is that food accidentally as a transport do something similar to tl0. I keep fantasizing....


Romy, I do not have CEC TL1 , I just have CEC TL0 3.0 , I listened to TL1 but did not buy it.I agree you TL0 has more dynamic than TL1 specially in bass and TL0 have much better pace and rhythm but the main difference of TL0 vs TL1 is about transparency.I think here we both agree on sound difference but our words are different.  in my opinion CEC TL1 give me less information from CD records so TL0 has more real/transparent sound. 
a-bit off-topic but I think this is very interesting subject to understand which is the right DAC for TL0 . I listened to many DACs with TL0 and although I am not sure but I guess the CEC TL0 has better sound with perfect time domain response DACs. some DACs have better time domain response (less ringing less overshoot) but some DACs have better frequency response. Bidat, TAD, Emm Labs, Old Audio Aero, Old Wadia, Audio Note and all NOS DACs have good time domain response. dCS and most modern DACs are not perfect in time domain response.
  
http://www.soundbsessive.com/the-meitner-idat-da-interpolation-algorithm/ 

www.amiraudio.com, www.hifi.ir
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) Select Pages: 
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  High End Audio and musical content...  Design decisions for different music....  Playback Listening  Forum     8  73474  06-01-2006
  »  New  High-End Audio Topologies and Higher-End listening obje..  Whole other subject.....  Playback Listening  Forum     1  1008  09-04-2024
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts