Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Melquiades Amplifier
In the Thread: Valve Preamplifier for Macondo/DSET
Post Subject: Sometime a cigar is not a just a cigar..Posted by Romy the Cat on: 4/29/2019
Anthony , having a room slightly bigger than your and
the rest the same I feel that 3V I get from my frond end is just barely enough.
I have some CD recordings that are have very low compression and recorded with
wide dynamic range (Pop Music’s Gogol Suite for instance) that I run at full
volume and wish I had a few DBs more. Granted that I have a tendency to hear
much louder if I want it. Try the Gogol Suite’s Ferdinand coda and tell me
if it is possible to hear it at low volume. Get only Mark Gorenstein’s version.
I think if you get your 3V you should be fine. Ironically you tuner outs somewhere
the same, you should have a point of reference. BTW, in you tuner is very easy
to adjust the output gain by changing one resistor.
I am not familiar with the whole XXHighEnd ecosystem and I
am not so savvy in digital topologies to be able to associate or another DAC design
decision with predictable results. I might repeat what others say but I never
had my own experimentation with digital other than listening ready to go commercial
units. The minimization of sound processing in Phasure DACs certainly very appealing
part but many people do it or claim to do it with very different outcomes. I am
a bit concerned that you guys stay purist refusing DSP in DAC but at the same
time tolerate digital volume controls (typically horribly implemented) on you playback
software.
There is another concern of mine that I would like to voice,
primary that I pick up from you explanation of streaming. I call streaming a process
of playing files stored on a computer or what you call “simply computer
playback". The process of streaming from Youtube or from any other public
providers I would not call streaming in contest of high-end audio objectives. I
stream concerts from zillion sources, I love your Australian Broadcast
Corporation Classic FM BTW, but I would never consider to make any audio session
base upon that streaming. In fact I very rarely use main system to play THAT
time pf the streaming, this is what pilot playback is for. Here is where I
would like to propose a suggestion and I am not convinced that I am right. It is
possible that in some cases playing those bad streaming sources some digital processing
can “improve” a perceived sound but the same digital processing will not be beneficial
with better digital sources. So, what I
would sagest you to do is download some kind of very good digital files of know
quality (there are plenty of them around) and use THAT for sound check, not
some kind of Youtube streaming.
Sure, there is another concern. :-) I am not sure how to explain
it. Try do not feel that I am trying to make an effort to compromise you judgment.
I am trying to identify the differences between your and my methodological approaches.
From what I hear from you it seems to me that have more tendency to practice “delta
listening”, where one component is evaluated against another. This is certainly
a legitimate way to go and it is widely practicing by audio people. I do it sometimes
but also I frequently practice different assessment paradigm. What I do I discard
the given performance of a component A and component B in comparative terms and
I evaluate the sound of component A and component B against an abstract model
of sound that I have in my head. I just listed the music, a specific interpretation,
I know what I need to get out of this or that interpretation, and I impersonate
myself as I am a conductor who want to stress this or that aspects of a given reading.
Then I can see how the component A and component B help or prevent me to do it.
The irony is that using this evaluation techniques many surrogate criteria of common
audio evaluation juts stay outside of prentices and not in play anymore. For uninformed
person it sounds like capitalized subjectivism but the really is that this is
the only objective method of audio expletives know to me. If you hear a sequence
of notes properly done and you know with very high level precision the
amplitude of let say patriotism in that phrase then the component A witch does
it properly will automatically have all pure audio tricks done. The complexity
come when component B delivers higher amplitude of that patriotism then you expect.
Does it make the component B “better”? Not necessary and it take some time to understand
it within yourself. You need to work
with yourself, your undersetting of the work, learning about the performer and circumstances
of the play, the recording techniques, listen many other interpretations,
listen your own objectives and interests…. then the answer of “interpretation properness”
will come to you. A component that “helps” you and that create less ambiguity
of your own confusions should be recognized as better. A component that will
push you for more polar or radical interpretations should be recognized as
better but it has to be viewed in context of other this as well. A component
that pushes you listening preferences away from bad music or weak interpretations
should be recognized as better.Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site