Let start from far away….

Sometime in the past, while I was fighting with bad electricity, I was trying a variety of symmetric transformers. I do not know if they were implemented as good as they should (I doubt) but I detected an interesting common tendency with the entire class of those units. In addition to objectively and subjectively cleaning up what they call “harmonic noise”, substantially minimizing all possible loops and “enriching’ the lower bass the balanced transformers did something that forced me to abandon their use. Along with that harmonic noise reducing they subtract from music a lot of useful information, namely they artificially expedited upper-bass/lower-midrange (something that I call an “audio seriousness zone”), created a generic lower bass++, and the most important they inappropriately sharpen the parabola with which the notes roll to it’s pitch, making sound too “sharp”. I understand why the wide audiophiles community very welcome to those affects with their unfortunate addiction to the immediately beneficial Sound but I personally find this Sound very appalling.

Later, I made some experiments with powering my phonostages and I detected that a sympatric half way rectification with consequential voltage doubling produce quite similar effects. However, in the power supplies the effect was less revolting and there were many opportunities to mask out the result with use of the different type of capacitors, to use different damping sound by LC chain or some other means. With a proper selection of a symmetric rectification and “complementary” filtering methods it was possible to get a good balance between speed, accelerations and harmonic acoustic-like saturations, however the effect of that none-intelligent striping harmonics by use of symmetric application still manifested itself…

Lately I made many experiments with open baffles type of speakers. I always liked them for certain things but something unnamed bothered me when I listened them and I did not know what it was. A month or so ago I come up with an revelation. I made a realization that in sound character of an open baffle I taste the well known to me signature of symmetric applications. The open baffles always sound very attractive; the interesting question is why they so hugely eliminate the dependencies of sonic result from a quality of drivers and from the way in witch the drivers were used electrically. There is always a point with open baffles where a speaker suddenly flips out, stop radiate a “personalized sound” and fill a room with a generic sound. Does it happen when the open baffles at their lower knee starts to act as a dipole and those hidden rules of symmetric applications begin to take over? Isn’t is why the open baffles, regardless of the driver’s quality, produce the same “assisted sound” in their lower bass? What happens when the positive and negative fronts of the waves meet and compliment themselves and why they act so remarkably similar-negatively in acoustic and electronics? Has it anything to do with the fact that in live sound we most likely do not have any natural dipoles and that we are not tuned to the symmetric acoustics?  Or perhaps there are some idiosyncrasies of the symmetric implementations that might be important and that would be responsible for the result?

Anyhow, I detect that the “symmetric things”, if they used, then they should be used very watchful and observant as I learned that there are some long-term negative consequences of this “assisted symmetric sound”.  With the dipoles, very similar to the symmetric electronic topologies, the listing awareness become too instantly contented and the most important become addicted to be gratified to instantly and to effortlessly. This leads to a “thinner” less challenged musical appreciation. Not a good thing, I have to mention….

I do like the open baffles; I do like the symmetric power supplies… Now, the question is why the rest of topologies sound like Sound but the Symmetric Sound sounds like a Sound Attempt instead of a Sound Result?

I’m wondering….

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Yes, I was implying the dipole-centric results (open buffers, ports, passive radiators and so on). They all has tendency to “demean” the significance of Sound by introducing the false sense of comfort that reduces the original anxiety and complicity of Sound.

The Cat

My easy dipole defense would be that I have not yet heard a monopole that does not distract from the illusion due to some other issues, meaning that it would be a case of picking your poison. But I think there is more to it. Maybe I don't like the "pure" content due to the inherent flaws of recorded music. I like my coffee with some milk. Many have concluded that the "straight wire with gain" is not a desirable objective and look for comfort one way or another. Could this attempt be reconstruction of Sound rather than just dilution of it, no matter how primitive and partial? The dipole effect may be an artifact, but the comfort is real.

Richard,

I absolutely agree with you that dipole provides a masking affect from many problems but along with illumination of the badly reproduced bass dipoles inject into music a common denominator of…  dipolenisness….. and this something that removes complexity and “drama” from musicality.

The dipoles, while they are in their zone of acoustic non-shortening do fine: mid-ranges, very upper bass, depends of the design. However, all dipoles soon or later short accusatorially and this sound (while it being shorted) is something that I clearly identify, distinguish and do not appreciate.

I call it “helped” sound.

The dipole bass is very even and with little relation to… Sound. Let me explain what I mean. Bass is a part of sound that being reproduce and I personally like when bass is an ingredient of music that I hear. However, when I hear dipoles I accept bass as a property of room but not as a property of reproduced music. In addition, this ease that you mentioned is not ease, at least for me, but something that removes efforts. This lack of efforts while I listen music is something that I fine very disturbing. It is nice to play straightforward music, while you we drink tea and speak over telephone but it sit too ‘not enough” when we listen a serious material.

 Well, I certainly am not trying to convince you or anybody else that dipoleness is a fundamentally faulty consept (although I believe that it is so) but I would offer you to make some experiments by introducing different dipoles vs. sealed back acoustic system and to monitor the progress of your listening benefits and your listening habits.

I did it…

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Thanks Romy. The monopole issues I referred to are in the areas of coloration and presentation throughout the spectrum, that can be solved/masked effectively with dipoles. I am very aware of the dipoles' shortcomings in the bass area but they do not seem as important to me. It could be that I haven't experienced a monopole that sufficiently solves the issues I have with them. Anyway, the weakenesses of both concepts can be greatly reduced and they may even draw on each other's strength in a system, just like single-ended tubes and push-pull solid state can ;-)

More importantly, we may be pursuing different goals with our systems at this stage. I certainly am not that serious, but I'll keep listening...

Regards,

Richard

Richard,

I think we should differentiate (and this should be applicable no only to this thread/post but to whatever you might read on this site) two very distinctive things: a seriousness on the subject and a seriousness of “perceive ourselves” on the subject.

I am quite serious on the subject, that subject was a source of my interest and intention in past. I have a highly polarized opinion on the subject and I put all my seriousness behind it. However, how serious I am about it? Not serious at all, or I would say I do not really care about it.

Let me I explain what I mean. On this forum we collaborate on the specific subjects and the scope of our interests are severely restricted but the subjects of the threads. We kind or present the binary snapshots on the subjects. Therefore it is easy to get a perception that if a person expressed a highly polarized opinion then the person is all into the subject and any alternative take is a huge violation of the person liberty or interests. Nothing could be further from the truth!

We are talking about quite abstract things and I, along with anyone else (I hope) am very “seriously” understand the nonfigurativeness of those conversations. I would not kill myself if I put a dipole in my own listening room and I do not send Anthrax filled letters to anyone who has dipoles in their rooms. During all those discussions we are talking explicitly about the conceptual advantageous solutions and it has nothing to do with what we chose to implement in our real live, or did not chose to do anything at all. Certainly there are thousands reasons why we do what we do, and why we do not do what we do not do….

I always have a difficulties to understand why audio people (I do not talking about you but I generalize) bind their positions about audio reproduction with this own lives and own accomplishment. It always surprised and puzzled me why somebody’s comments that “your tweeter sound too harsh” some people perceive similar to “your kids are ugly” or “your mama is whore”. Come on this is just audio and we all use each other to learn!

I do not think that you have to justify why you chose to use dipoles. The important in here is to understand each other’s reasons and try to find for yourself if the other person’s motivations are applicable and will be confirmed without the scope of your own objectives.

So, seriousness is not a property of relation between the person and subject but rather the relationship between the person’s incentives and his/her conclusions.

Rgs,
Rome the Cat

Romy, after reading my previous post I realize I would have to express myself more clearly, sorry for the misunderstanding! This hobby is an important part of my life, I have specific opinions and am probably not less serious about them than you are.

What I was referring to is "serious" as opposed to more straightforward material. Maybe the music I listen to and the way I listen is more directly emotional and less intellectual. This is actually a whole different topic, maybe worth another thread? I am looking for a system that makes me relaxed, by being able to lose myself in the music and without analyzing it from a technical perspective too much. This may result in prioritizing comfort over complexity to some degree. I am not saying that complexity and comfort are mutually exclusive and actually think they should not be, but they may be within the limitations of a system. A dipole seems to be the best solution for me at present, but I am actually keen to hear an evolved system like yours to see if it could change my opinion.

Regards,

Richard

Wow, terrific thread!

Do you both believe that one can fine-tune his/her system to achieve "emotional sound" or "intellectual sound"? Are there performance issues in a system that can make it closer to the "real thing" in absolute terms, or is everything personal and not transferrable to other listeners? What makes one really serious about this hobby, his listening skills, his goals, the money spent, the kind of music he/she listens to?

I'm quite newbie into what I like to believe is being serious about this hobby, and doing the transition from level 2 to level 3 in my listening habits, so reading opinions about "how-to-do-it" from experienced people is very interesting, and I mean it more from a "state of mind" perspective than a "buying machines" one.

Regards to all.

Richard wrote:

What I was referring to is "serious" as opposed to more straightforward material. Maybe the music I listen to and the way I listen is more directly emotional and less intellectual. This is actually a whole different topic, maybe worth another thread? I am looking for a system that makes me relaxed, by being able to lose myself in the music and without analyzing it from a technical perspective too much. This may result in prioritizing comfort over complexity to some degree. I am not saying that complexity and comfort are mutually exclusive and actually think they should not be, but they may be within the limitations of a system.

This is exactly “it” and this subject worth not “worth another thread” but worth the “worth entire hobby”. You see, it is not about the emotional vs. intellectual listening but rather about overload vs. underload your system with “seriousness”. If you read carefully the Introduction and objective part of “My Playback” section (the most important sections out there) then you would see that I introduced a concept of a “consciousness of a playback system” and playback’s ability to “interpret” musicality. That has very direct relation to what we are talking about.

The seriousness and complexity of music is neither your property nor property of your relationship with musicality but rather the property of composed, performed music. A playback is a next interpretive layer that is capable to alter the level of “delivered seriousness” and “delivered complexity”.  That is what I call the “distortions of complexity”. If music is light and “not-loaded”, then the playback system should transmit this ease perfectly transparent. If music has some serious or “difficult” intentions then a playback should allow them to go through. The quality of a playback can be determine but the playback amplitude of its delta between its ability to play “light” vs. “complex” or the ability to inherent and embrace the original musical intentions.

Of course there is a high-eng of those things… The high-eng of the playback system building is to make your system to actively intrude that “complexity faithfulness” and introduce own intentional “distortions of complexity”. This is what conductors do and we are in the very same position: only we use different means and the different tools. However, this is really “thin” area and the basic idea that I would like to express answering you is that the “seriousness accuracy” is very important. Some system can’t play “too light” some system can’t play “too complex”. Some, topologies and implementation scenarios are more prone to one or another pole but the assortment of “complexity faithfulness” or the ability of a system to introduce a larger “dynamic range of seriousness” is one of the keys for system’s capacity and “high-endness”.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

In addition, this ease that you mentioned is not ease, at least for me, but something that removes efforts. This lack of efforts while I listen music is something that I fine very disturbing.

Richard wrote:

Maybe the music I listen to and the way I listen is more directly emotional and less intellectual. This is actually a whole different topic, maybe worth another thread? I am looking for a system that makes me relaxed, by being able to lose myself in the music and without analyzing it from a technical perspective too much.

Antonio J. wrote:

So after all, the more neutral and transparent the system is to the recording, but without adding "enhanced detail, drama, complexity or lightness" the better, isn't it? Anyway, this is another entire level of appreciation into the music well beyond the "usual" level of appreciation of a system.

slowmotion wrote:

I think I see where you are going , Richard, with me it's the other way round. If I connect with the music I get exited, and for me personally I work towards a system that connects me to the music and the performers more. All to do with emotional listening for me, I agree with you there ...... cheers ,Jan

Hello Jan,

The sequelae of this topic is strangling! 

My musical preferences, as anyones should/do, have been changing over the past few years; the system I set up a few years go emphasized the types of music I listened to then - lots of indie, jazz, blues and some classical.  As I slowly began to expand my tastes to explore chamber, world, big classical, etc., I realized my system could not do what I asked of it; the bastard sat there ONLY able to play and explore the original limited genres...I hated it! 

Moving into a new place to start school gave me a fairly interesting opportunity - I ditched my entire amp/preamp/speaker/several dacs setup and streamlined to a relatively small headphone based playback...what I did not realize at the time was how much more MUSICALLY neutral this little system affected my own choices in genre/artist/performance/recording/message.  For example, I did not get Buxtehude before in the old system.  I "do" him now and embrace it.  Heck, its turning into "chicken soup" music (even though I do not eat animal) along with my old 80's new wave records, mahler (yes Kitty, i am a masochist), old bluesman cds, shosta strings etc...

Regarding your post, I do not feel you should let the music you connect with now entirely judge the system; in my experiences, my system was ruthlessly dictating the music I listen to...look at all those meathead audiophiles playing Diana Krell over and over again to judge the new DAC or wire coming out.  They're so screwed in this arena that it started to become a situation where I stopped laughing and got scared.

Now what are the consequences of starting to get this topic?  Ask me what on earth I should do about getting a new speaker/amp system!?!?!  If I did not have records, radio broadcasts and CD's to listen to, I would rather turn everything over to a big hard drive array (if this didn't screw up EVERYTHING) and listen to my music on a pair 3 ounce 4" tall speakers on my desk.  It cannot be done.  I've basically been doing the smallest possible system I could own for over a year now, and am just realizing that even this little system is not neutral enough (surprise!).  I don't know what is, but I know I can get "there" with some time and effort.

Going in slowly expanding circles,

Chirag

Hi Chirag,

I don't know if you read this terrific post by Romy: http://www.goodsoundclub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=254 but perhaps you went from level one to level two in his classification. I don't know where the hell I am, but I think that having a system that helps building that emmotional or intellectual connection to players/conductor/composer intentions is great, but it's not less true that it can be achieved with pretty simple systems like my iPod with crappy Sony in-ears.

Cheers A.J.

Hi Antonio,

I just realized I glanced over that thread assuming its relationship to the 6 levels of benefits.  Its quite interesting, but I do not know where I fall in that spectrum (no, it can't be discrete stages as its far to "big" to really ascribe that easily ;-)).  My "small" system is a seiki table, phono stage, tuner, headamp, dac, dvd transport, msb audiophile and a pair of grado RS-2's.  Its quite small with regards to the space it takes up, but its by no means a little Ipod.

I think my ideal system would be a telepathic linkage to an imaginary Tivoli 312.7x that played exactly what I wanted from any medium with crystal clarity and purpose immediately into my conciousness for whatever intellectual/emotional reason....a very serious "neuro-jukebox" if you will.  I'm fairly confident I'd look like a fool just dancing around my building all day with some weird electrode ridden implant on my head, but it would be worth it!

A distant second to that would be some imaginary system I'm struggling to figure out....as in, I know quite abstractly what I want it to do, but have no real time (yet!) to experiment and carry it through.  The other completely annoying part about building a system I would really utilize is the sheer size and weight.  How am I supposed to chase my doggy around while she deftly jumps over my cables and I keep falling into my tonearm?

Best,
Chirag

Romy, I can very much relate to the objective of faithfully reproducing the music's original complexity, and that the margin for intentional editing is limited and inevitably results in sameness. My point is that while in live music full complexity and comfort (listening satisfaction) are one, in reproduced music there may be trade-offs due to the limitations in recording and playback techniques. So given that the tools available/known to me are imperfect, introducing more complexity could bring with it less desirable effects that may distract me more from the illusion. So I make choices that allow me to compromise. Of course, if you have different tools available your choices may be different.

Antonio, in my opinion the same applies to the question of the "real thing". Nobody will question that live music sounds real, but when it comes to audio systems we have to prioritize which part of reality we are trying to get close to. For example, one system can reproduce a drum skin with the impact and loudness of the realy thing, and another reproduces voices in space in the most convincing manner. There is no such thing as a universal reference, i.e. no system can sound like the real thing to everybody.

BTW when I say I want my system to make me relaxed I don't mean that I'm looking for generic sound and unchallenging music. I am relaxed when my system allows me to be drawn into the music emotionally without being distracted by things that remind me I'm listening to reproduced sound. This is very different.

Being serious about this hobby to me is simply striving for excellence within my means. I am serious about my opinions as they are shaped through considerable effort and believe they have some value. This does not mean I take myself too seriously and fortunately nobody on this site seems to.

Regards,

Richard

Chirag wrote:

Hello Jan,</p> <p>The sequelae of this topic is strangling!

&nbsp; </p> <p>My musical preferences, as anyones should/do, have been changing over the past few years; .................................................................. Heck, its turning into "chicken soup" music (even though I do not eat animal) along with my old 80's new wave records, mahler (yes Kitty, i am a masochist),&nbsp;old bluesman cds, shosta strings etc...</p>

<p>Regarding your post, I do not feel you should let the music you connect with now entirely judge the system; in my experiences, my system was&nbsp;ruthlessly dictating the music I listen to...look at all those meathead audiophiles playing Diana Krell over and over again to&nbsp;judge the new DAC or wire coming out.&nbsp; They're so screwed in this arena that it started to become a situation where I stopped laughing and got scared.</p>

<p>Going in slowly expanding circles,</p> <p>Chirag</p>