Phil, what other wire have you demoed in your system? In audio, hearing is believing. I know Glory has performed extensive experiments with wire, conditioning, amplification, and sources in addition to hearing other Zu based systems, and his experience has been consistent: the Zus are not impervious to associated gear. System resolution may also play a role in discerning wire changes. There is a significant differrence between a set of 845 monos and an ASR in terms of noise floor. The ASR is a better microscope.
Your comments about rooms are spot on IMO. Overdamped and synthetic sounding is the norm. Older homes with vaulted, parabolic ceilings and certain concert halls do a better job propagating ambient energy. |
Spirit, Clayton Shaw is clever and his spatial systems are worth considering particularly if your speakers use a digital xover. The Black Hole concept is not new. Nelson Pass and others have attempted similar manipulations in the past (http://www.stereophile.com/content/phantom-acoustics-shadow-active-low-frequency-acoustic-control-page-2)
Cobra, it looks like you have done your homework to a degree. I am not surprised that you have silver wire in your rig. Most SET owners seem to navigate towards silver. Like Glory, I wonder about your source. Did you demo the ASR or was it in someone else's system?
I know Glory has evolved from Audio Note SETs to Atma-sphere OTLs to Tenor OTLs and now to the ASR Emitter I exclusive. He has the most musically convincing system to date. Go figure.... |
Phil, Glory's sonic evolution was predicated on his system in its entirety. If our analysis is not holistic in that sense, we miss the boat. The ASR is ruthless, so silver wire, source, and other variables potentially color one's perception of it more so than tube gear. Plain and simple. |
Good debate/discussion that was handled in a relatively adult manner.
Schw06, I understand that your system has gone through a major overall. Any comments on the relative contributions of your new gear (AMR dac, Luxman amp, Dimitri conditioner) to what you are enjoying now? Any comments on the transition from a SET to the Luxman? What did you think of the TEO cabling in comparison to the Zu?
In my recent experiences with cables and conditioning, you can radically alter the tone and musicality of a system that way. Tubes are often the easy road to achieve this but often seem to lack the vibratory, ambient energy and dynamics of live music even with high efficiency speakers. Just my two cents.... |
|
Charles, its a little boorish of you to simultaneously celebrate Phil and denigrate Gary in the context of what is now old news. Furthermore, we are free to share our views without some pc overlord with his ruler and rulebook in hand. If you actually read through the thread more carefully, it is plain to see that they both expressed pointed sentiments about the issue at hand: how to get the most out of your Zus. Phil is more professorial and slightly tangential, and it is easy to miss the implied judgements. Gary said he had a Ford Focus front end and wire. Phil told him he had gone in the wrong direction in terms of amplification and had wandered away from the true.... I don't see any differences here.
Finally, as to the world of SETs and Zu: Gary and I both know a Zu owner who auditioned the Audion gear (based on Phil's advice) and felt it was noisy, overly colored, had loose bass and simply got in the way of the music. He now owns SS. Hmmm.
I referenced a British psychology study in Mike Lavigne's system thread and it is very apropo here: "British researchers found that wine tasting was influenced by ambient music. The adjectives used to describe the same wine changed based on music chosen." So, our opinions may speak more to our listening habits, age, and other intangibles rather than pure discernment on electronica.
|
Spiritofmusic, I agree with your sentiments about the need for transducers that transcends our current audio paradigm. I have experienced two. Roger Sanders panels are one. I heard them at Axpona last year, and despite very modest gear, wire and no conditioning, the sound was excellent. This was all for under 15K. The front end was a pro audio Tascam player. I also briefly owned the Emerald Physics CS 2.7s. They were relatively impervious to wire, amps, and the front end. To make a speaker that is truly impervious to upstream components would be an engineering marvel. I have yet to hear it.
The burning question is whether the Def 4s fit into this category? There is an inconsistent witness here. Telling people to drop 13K on a speaker and not to sweat the rest is a good sales pitch. I have no doubt they are excellent speakers. I previously owned Intuitive Design Gamma Summits. The owners of Dale's speakers are often fairly opinionated and felt most other offerings were lackluster. One of the most opinionated from that group felt that Zu was one of the few speakers he heard that was musically true. So bravo to Zu.
Phil, it is not a pernicious gesture on Gary's part to suggest that you can maximize the 4s potential with different gear. It is just his opinion and recent experience. He has not fully elaborated on the secret sauce in his system and maybe should. I am not sure. As for Audion, the person in question demoed them but did not buy. He is not pining away for Audion or some sonic surrogate as you suggested. Obviously we are talking about two different people. His SS has taken the Zus over the top. Phil, I hate to ask but are you a dealer/distributor for Audion? Knowing who bought what and going through the trouble to do repairs on a faulty unit certainly makes it look that way. If so, you need to a issue a disclaimer. If you are not, bravo to you for being a passionate and dedicated end user. We need more of that. I have grown very weary of all the colored testimony on Audiogon by three specific groups: 1) stealth dealers who are in the industry; 2) faux dealers who don't make a living through audio but simply use it as a mechanism to get 50 points off and then endlessly recycle gear at a whim; and 3) end users who get a "special price" on gear and then judiciously wave the companies flag on the forums. It is dishonest and unclean, and the only antidote is transparency. For those of you who don't fit into any of these categories, kudos to you! |
Germanboxers, what you are asking for is the holy grail of audio IMO. Room and power are important elements beyond simply amp and speaker interactions. What people lost in the dust flying around Glory's contrarian testimony is that his own personal achievement of this very goal was realized largely through power and not simply amps, cables, sources, etc. You two should chat. |
Germanboxers, I did not choose my terms correctly. By 'holy grail,' I did not imply that your quest for 3D tangibility was mystical or unrealistic. I meant to say that it was the essence of good audio: convincing audio illusion. I have heard very few systems pull it off regardless of amplification, etc. I too have made inept, stumbling attempts at system building while chasing various sonic attributes.
I have a few friends who own Claytons and love them even on higher efficiency speakers. That being said, they have also been described as being "darker sounding" for class A SS, and that may be part of the reason why you like the Atmas better. Believe it or not, many people felt the older generation ASR amps were too dark sounding. Go figure. I do know that using SS amps can make life harder in terms of achieving synergy and good sound. Tubes are much more forgiving particularly with a digital front end and high efficiency speakers. I briefly experimented with the Emerald Physics CS 2.3s, and high powered SS (TRL Samsons) was not copacetic.
You have already cobbled together a nice system. No need to chase a lot of new variables. The one variable worth investigating is the new secret sauce in Gary's system, one that produced exactly what he (and it appears you) were looking for: Dale Pitcher's new conditioner.
It is supremely irritating that you cannot email members any longer. |
Germanboxers, your approach is wise. Keep what you have and take small steps. I have close to 15 years in the "high end" of the hobby, and an embarrassing percentage of that time has been spent going either backwards or sideways. And that is despite being rigorously "scientific" and disciplined in doing blinded listening sessions, "research," etc. The only reason I am where I am now (temporarily?) is dumb luck or grace depending on your perspective. What a goofball hobby. All that aside, I was wondering about what you are "not" hearing currently visàvis your sonic memory of that glorious sound? Is there a single variable that you are able to pin down? Do you think the Atmas are a tad too lean? Your source? Do cables make much of an impact in your system? Speaker positioning have much influence (as Phil suggested)? For me, I have become more primitive or foundational in my approach. I am fixated on power and the room. I think dropping the noise floor in a system can improve dimensionality but cannot necessarily bring that fleshy palpability. I know for Gary, he was able to achieve those two things through cables and "conditioning" rather than adding another set of tubes. You guys should dialogue as you have owned similar gear and seem to have a similar sonic bias ( [email protected]). |
germanboxers, the speakers definitely influence the final result. I agree. Acidic detail machines would not work with your paradigm. |
Germanboxer, do you think reinserting a tube pre-amp would ameliorate some of what you are missing, particularly lower midrange density? I know you have already done that experiment, but...
I researched the Halo along with Prism Orpheus as possible DAC/pre-amps to front an Emerald Physics system. The word on the street at that time was that the Halo was more lean and mean but "true to source." The Orpheus was a little fatter and more euphonic. I never heard either, but that was what I was told by folks who had done the shootouts (whatever that is worth). I also dialogued with Barry Diament (well known recording engineer) and he used the ULN-8 in his studio and loved it and felt it was very true to source. No embellishment. That aside, I know many feel that the Metric Halo and Berkeley dacs are too "digital" sounding and converted to tubed products like the Lampizator. Gary felt that way even with the Atmas and later Tenor OTLs in place.
Then there is power (and Spiritofmusic, it rules indeed!). IMHO, that has more impact than people realize especially in terms of 3D presentation and even making things more "analog." I know the ULN-8 has a switching power supply, so I wonder about its effect on the sound and/or its potential imperviousness to power cords, conditioners, etc. Barry Diament told me that he experimented with tricked out linear supplies on the Halo and it did not make a hill-of-beans difference. So, I don't know what to say on that one. I "think" or "know" that dropping the noise floor and dealing with ambient inerference (RFI, etc) is important. I played with isolation transformers briefly (Topaz) with my EP system, and they had an undeniable effect. More clarity, dynamics, etc. I think they are a grand idea if you live in a crappy hood with lots of external garbage like industry, etc. Some people (who made use of transformers in the 80s) felt that they have a "sound" (which I think I heard) and can limit dynamics. I do not know or pretend to understand the technical particulars behind that. Another area of interest for me is grounding schemes. I have audio buddies who own the Tripoint Troy grounding system and cannot live without it. I also know several people who have made use of ionic grounding units in their homes, and they are purported to drop the noise floor significantly through grounding of your subpanel, outlets, and even the chassis of your equipment. One friend told me that an the sound of an average tuner improved dramatically! I will be trying this myself in my listening room that is being built as we speak. Then there is Dale's magic box, but more on that later in a different forum.
Don't forget your computer. While being a great source from a utilitarian point of view, it is a rats nest of noise and interference. There is a lot you can do, including linear supplies, shielding, hacking the programs that operate in the background, etc. MachI is one outfit that does mods. Here is a good discussion of some of the issues at hand: http://www.lessloss.com/page.html?id=45
Finally, I do hope you find bliss in the 4s and the right amp. That would make things a lot simpler and this meditation null and void. |
Keith, other than the Mac and current amps, what others have you tried on the Zus? |
Cobra, the ASR's neutrality and low noise is simply highlighting the idiosyncrasies of your system/room |
In the last few months, three Zu owners have converted from tubes to ASR favorable results. Keith, you should consider that as an option if the Quads don't float your boat long term. |
Keith, that makes sense. I think the secret sauce with ASR involves the battery powered input stage. Glory and others can chime in on how it sounds with the Zus.... |
Spirit, what cables do you use? The consensus from recent ASR coverts is that Zu cabling is NOT synergistic as is a lot of silver cabling in general unless it is top of the barrel and well implemented. Faux detail and dynamics from silver works with tube amps but is not necessary with the ASR |
Spirit, three tube-o-phile Zu owners converted, and coolness and sterility has not been the consensus. Source (you have a good one) and cabling matter.
The OTL route makes some sense too. In addition to the Dave Berning Z-OTL, Atmasphere is also worth looking at.... |
Cobra, the ASR's neutrality and low noise is simply highlighting the idiosyncrasies of your system/room |
Agear, why stoop to snide comments about phil`s room/system and ancillary equipment? Just stating the obvious. You decision to flag that comment could be interpreted as snide. Just don't expect my view of it to change unless the ASR meaningfully improves their amplification so I hear a better result. Until then you can quote 3 or 3000 converts. It's irrelevant. If majorities reflected good judgment in hifi, there would be no Bose, B&W, Boulder, Wilson or Krell. Friederich Schafer has worked on that design for over 30 years. Maybe he should hire you as a consultant? Silver's advantage is simply in being the superior conductor, granting it wideband transparency. Silver is only nominally better as a conductor compared to copper (6% better). Translates into "louder" and not an increased bandwidth. Why is it that SET owners gravitate to silver? Hmmm. Every power cord, speaker cable and interconnect introduces distinctive sonic character. Ideally we try to minimize this reality. The same argument can be made against using SET amplification. Why not minimize second harmonic distortion? I have talked at length with a manufacturer who makes what many consider the best tube amplification in the world, and he felt that SETs present so many disadvantages from a design standpoint that they were not worth pursuing despite the plump and pleasing midrange. I will grant that they make life easier. No need to sweat the details regarding wire, conditioning, and even your room. C'est la vie.... |
My point all along is due do our different preferences and goals, just choose what sounds best to 'you' and leave it at that. An overused and tired fallback position, and one that, if you or anyone else here really believed it, Audiogon would not exist. Most of the verbiage generated is the derivative of debate (and subtle and not-so-subtle insults). Glory caught cobra with his pants down. Cobra has gotten the better of Glory too. So what. Don't go to the Asylum anytime soon. Not everything is created equal. This is true of most things in life, and audio is no exception. A Yugo would never be confused for a Porsche, nor would a Audion Black Shadow for an ASR..... |
I don`t know you personaaly but based on reading your posts you come off as dogmatic and somewhat childish, as if what you prefer 'has' to be better than someone else`s choice,Come on my friend grow up. You completely missed the larger point made and the obvious humor in my last post Charlie. Platitudes and a patronizing tude don't equal higher ground, but again, that is one of the internet personas you seem to wear. Come on my friend. Change it up a little. Germanboxers, what happened dude? More feedback? A blinded experiment involving ASR, Quad, and other amps feeding IVs has been suggested. The Zu owner involved has a tricked out room and owns the latest generation of Emitter I. That would be worth hearing about.... |
Thanks for the input German. The Dead reference is amusing. I have quite a few bootlegs along with a smattering of Dick's picks. My wife gets irritated by the Dead, and does not "understand" their musical merits other than being a road trip facilitator due to their fluid, undulating, and circular knoodling. That is a potential thread in itself...
Kudos to Zu for running an ethical and customer service oriented company. That is in vanishing supply these days IMO. A lot of weasels out there with substandard but heavily hyped product.
German, it seems as if you are a transparency man (like Gary). Would be interested to hear your opinions on the Emitter as several other IV owners have converted and are thrilled.
As for all the teeth gnashing about amps, let me clear the air about what I "believe" or think I know. When Gary was transitioning away from OTLs to SS due to heat issues, I was not expecting a good outcome. Ironically, he shared the same basic opinions of SS as Phil and Charles. The fact that ASR floated his boat was a REAL surprise. At that time, I myself was struggling with amplification. My TRL Dude/Samson combo did not synergize well with my new loudspeaker (Fried Reference). Things were a little too bristly. I thus started looking for new amps, including SETs. The designer, Steve Finley, had told me that many Ref owners used tube amps, including SETs. The best sound he had heard from them was fronted by Viva Solista 845 monos. Sooo, I was hunting for tube amps. I wanted something with slam and the "breath of life" phenomenon which you rarely hear. Options included Kronzilla, Solista, the big TRL stuff, Joule Electra, etc.
I did some preliminary A+B experiments with a Kora 50W SET that a friend loaned me, TRL, and ASR. I included my wife in the experiment (as I always do) in a blinded fashion. The ASR won easily. There were things TRL did a little better (dynamic energy) as well as the Kora (midrange subtleties), but from top to bottom, the ASR was simply more complete and satisfying. This was unexpected. Clayton Oxedine, the owner of the Kora, is a series xover guru who modded my Refs. He has been a SET and Vinyl only guy for years. He too was startled by how good the ASR sounded and told me he should consider one himself. The absence of tubes and hassle is a bonus with a 5 month old running around.
Is the ASR a perfect amp? The best in the world? Hell no. I am ALWAYS open to new things. Jim Rickets, who has sold Wavac and a lot of hi, hi end stuff, tells me that the new Alef stuff makes the Wavac and previous tube offerings sound broken. A little Italian integrated me sells (Norma) is supposed to make the ASR sound slow and sluggish. I told him to send me a demo unit but he declined. A local audiophile buddy is crowing about the new NCORE class D modules from Hypex and wants to do a shootout. It displaced his 15K Clayton class A monos. Fine. If its better than the ASR, so be it. It is not my child. I am not emotionally attached. This is all just a grand experiment.
The reality is that arguments about equipment (98% of this and other sites) is a bunch of empty hand wringing. Room and power trump equipment IMO. This is where I disagree with Phil most strongly. We have all heard the adage that the room is > 60-70% of a system. I now believe that is true. I am 80% done with a dedicated sound room centered around Starsound Technologies grounding scheme. I did some preliminary experiments with cheesewhiz gear (Apple AE, radioshack wire, Marantz AV integrated amp, and $300 Klipsch speakers). It sounds more real than my fancy pants stuff in a crap room. There are obvious problems in the upper frequencies, etc, but overall, it is a surprising discovery. |
I always find the path one has charted in this hobby (as well as the associated knowledge and relationships) to be illuminating. Agreed. The "journey" is typically shockingly haphazard and fickle despite the measured, anal retentive, retrospective analysis that gets thrown around on these threads. We are not the captains of our own audio ships. If I had snagged the Kronzilla or Solista, I would probably be flapping my gums on another thread about how it was the answer to everyone's prayers....lol. I am curious about the NCore from Hypex
read one of their white papers and, although over my head technically, was interesting nonetheless. There seems to be enthusiasm, if not true potential, in the class D approach. Consider me a casually interested bystander at the moment though. Color me an interested bystander as well. The specs are stunning. It "appears" as if class D has arrived. If you follow the US tour thread on AC, there is a lot of enthusiasm, but time will tell. I am skeptical due to my past experiments with class D (Hypex, classD, etc) on high efficiency speakers (Emerald Physics). It sounded pristine but the soundstage was slightly flat and cardboard sounding. That was even with a tubed pre-amp. You find that many class D devotees stress the need to a tubed pre-amp. I would be very interested to hear how the NCOREs did on the IVs or any Zu speakers for that matter. ....power and room issues being essential to get a good sound, after all it is the foundation (power) and enviroment (room acoustics) that the gear is constrained by. That is what I have bumbled into. I did an experiment with a Topaz isolation transformer, and the results, in a crappy, unfinished basement with no dedicated lines, etc were NOT subtle. I have read or been told that ITs can limit dynamics and can have a sound of their own. Here is a little blurb from Pure Powers website: "Q. Won't an isolation transformer make a new clean power supply?
A: Expensive isolation transformers can be used to create a new clean ground at the point of use and this will fix a common mode noise problem but at a high cost and a risk of dampening audio system dynamics. It will not correct voltage sags or spikes. It is better, and cheaper, to run new, uninterrupted wiring from the service entrance to a single isolated ground receptacle. This simple step will almost always be effective at cleaning up common mode noise that can cause hum." Spirit, since you know and like Clayton Shaw's offerings, have you thought about digital room correction? He offers that service (SpatialComputing.com). I believe it has a lot of potential merit in difficult rooms and real world settings. His viewpoint on the current direction and sound of(most) 'high end' components is near identical to my own thoughts formed over the past 20 years. So Charles, other than SETs being the shizzle, what specific elements of Phil's theology do you ascribe to? From what I surmise from some of his writings, room acoustics, power conditioning, and wire are a waste of time. Do you agree with that? Several older audiophiles and manufacturers I know whom I respect greatly share similar views. It almost appears to be a generational residue of sorts. |
Agear- let's be fair and highlight that the Alef gear starts at 60k an amp. That was in comparison to Wavac. Not exactly an Audiogon bargain hunters dream. ...believe in Room Acoustics and have a Rives L1 designed room- no component outside of speakers has made a larger improvement. Untrapped bass masks a lot of problems imo and that is another reason my amp journey may differ from others. Agreed. The room is your speaker. For me, stratifying things would go as follows: Room>power>speakers>amps>source>pre-amp>wire. I`m a true believer in the benefit of balanced AC power transformers. I`ve used the BPT3.5 SIG Plus for 4 years and as I`ve written elsewhere it provides an across the board improvement(yes,dynamics included) that is substantial.It`s permanent part of my system. I saw that you own the BPT. Nice unit. My speaker designer owns one and it has a positive influence on his system. Where I most agree with phil is the area of tonality,timbre and holistic attributes and their vital importance in presenting music 'natural' and convincingly. Much of the direction in the High End seems toward hyper detail and ultra clean low distortion. The result of this(strictly my humble opinion) is the sound becomes artificially lean, dry, sterile, 2-diminsional etc. The full body tone and harmonics are stripped away ( the complete note i.e.substain and decay is compromised)and the music will lose emotional involvement and sound canned. I agree wholeheartedly. The real question is what is the source of that phenomenon? Low distortion levels don't necessarily equal lean sound. If we all had 1/2" master tape, we probably we not be having this argument. Monkeying with the room and power can give you a more analog sound in my experience. Tubes also embellish poor source material whether it be CDs or Vinyl. That is a bonus IMO and why in real world applications, tube based amplification does make sense. There is less lunatic fringe, OCD audiophile behavior going on. As for Phil and his philosophy, I agree with much of his sentiments and I enjoy his acidic writings. For example, here is a blurb on room acoustics from the Asylum: I've never seen a mainstream living space I couldn't get satisfying sound from. This is the point. We've become so intolerant of compromised sound that we've made hi-fi arcane, irrelevant, anti-social and a perceived pathology in circles where once it was enjoyed.
It's our choice. Wormhole hobby or a musically-driven resurgent interest? I take a little bass spike and lower-treble glare at high SPL that I can't fully tune out of my room via normal furnishings, to drive for the latter. The first-time guest who once admonished me for having a coffee table in the living room with my stereo, and asked for its removal so could "hear properly" didn't get offered the glass of Pappy Van Winkle's 23 year old, nor invited back.
Phil and Well, I can't argue with a man who wants his own domain. But whether that's where the primary sound has to go, is another thing.
> > I would like a dedicated listening room that I can acoustically treat and furnish with only one purpose, the best quality sound and comfort of listening. < <
Over the last few decades I've visited many dedicated listening rooms, acoustically treated, optimized for listening. I never had any fun hearing music in any of them, and I couldn't see any evidence the owners did either. The problem is, no one hears music in an optimized space. Put pop, jazz, rock, blues, etc. aside for the moment. As a kid I had regular opportunity to hear Eugene Ormandy's Phildelphia Orchestra in the Academy of Music, a truly mediocre acoustic space. And yet my emotional connection to the music was no greater when I later was able to hear Seiji Ozawa's Boston Symphony in the peerless Symphony Hall. But having been in Symphony Hall dozens of times for concerts, I notice that recordings made there have never sound *less* like Symphony Hall than when played back in an acoustically-treated, dedicated listening room. Room tuning folks are quacks, if judged by the results. They know everything about how a room measures and nothing about how it sounds. It's like investment bankers or venture capitalists who know everything about money but nothing about the economy.
The very best sounding room I have ever heard a hi-fi installed in was in a century-old Victorian house in Arlington, Massachusetts. It had a large living room proportioned within maybe 10% of Symphony Hall's, with large bay windows on two walls, a wall of floor-to-ceiling shelving and cabinetry, and an outsized fireplace. The ceiling was smooth plaster with radiused corners and a full mahogany soffet perimeter. Absolutely nothing was done to "optimize" the room acoustically. It was, however, so good, nothing sounded bad. The owner would challenge us to bring over our worst trade-ins to find something that sounded bad. I'm now almost the age he was when he taunted us to defeat his room. Even a pair of horrific Cerwin Vegas powered by grating Phase Linear 400 and Southwest Technical Products preamp fed by dry-as-sandpaper Stanton cartridge in a pathetic Garrard Zero 100 sounded OK in that room. Even a 1979 boombox couldn't be denied. I've never heard even a acoustician-designed, computer-modeled, custom-built room sound remotely close to being as good as that room. But I've had some that I lived in come closer than I hoped upon first inspection, especially in open plan houses.
If someone builds their man-cave for whatever and they put a decent stereo in it, fine with me. But their *only* hi-fi? Well, if they ask my advice, I recommend against it. Think of the music you could buy. The time you could get back. Satisfaction in the acoustically-treated dedicated listening space is elusive, and more often than not, it seems to me synthetic -- a declared victory because, well, the money's already been spent.
People have fun in livelier settings and music is generally a shared experience when heard live. It used to be that way in homes too. Of course, you used to turn on the radio and hear Dean Martin, Sinatra, The Beatles, Motown and Philly soul on the same station. If hi-fi is going to be relevant again, it has to have something for everyone and that means removing the conditions that draw it inward to a solitary interest. Besides, what's the point of keeping the art of a McIntosh faceplate to yourself?
Phil
There is a lot to agree with in there particularly in regards to orchestral music. A bitch to get right in our audiodomes. I have also heard my share of mis-engineered rooms that sound like a mortuary. You can hear a pin drop but are left feeling a little dead inside. On the other hand, what I am "hearing" now is a much better and involving facsimile. Like Andy Murray said after the Wimbledon final: "I am getting closer." Question for Phil: do you have any addendums to add to your room philosophy in light of recent experience with Keith and panels, etc? |
Charles, I had the good fortune of buying a house with an unfinished basement and thus my dream of an engineered room from the ground up has been realized. It is not your typical room with panels and bass traps. The actual walls have been mechanically grounded (ala Starsound/Sistrum technologies). The end stage has been realized when my neighbor's Best Buy grade system sounded more engaging than my big rig. |
Thanks Charles. A system thread is forthcoming. One key element about rooms and room tuning is that it takes a team approach with multiple sets of ears/minds. It is very difficult otherwise. If I had a first order problem like that, I'd minimally treat it too.
But I don't. I have normal US sheetrock-on-frame aberrations: some rising bass response, a little slap echo, some excitable sheetrock glare when I run Duane Allman or Hound Dog Tayler a little hot. But the tonal integrity of the system and room is solid, and imaging is as good as it gets... vs. Per my numerous demos, Phil's room in particular suffers from a small sound stage, lack of detail, and separation of instruments due to slap echo and lack of bass trapping that he mentions above. It sounds as if your room would in fact benefit from tuning. Again, the room game should be a team approach otherwise you can get lost in self-deception. There have been times when I thought I was cooking with gas and a fellow phile visits to provide a contrarian viewpoint. The difference in sound with and without will be similar in any room. That's because you can't cheat physics. and Audiophiles imo are lazy and want to buy cables, vibration, racks, points, paint, contact solution, green markets, etc and ignore the room too often. True and true. Phil, is the Zu Dominance more immune to room issues? Do you think it will fix things when replacing the IVs... |
Really, if anyone *ever* visits my home and doesn't enjoy the music I'm playing (or they asked for) because I have a bass rise, some acoustic bounce and only a 14' x 21' space with a coffee table and a flat screen.....well.....they aren't getting the Pappy Van Winkle's 23 either, and they will be welcome to depart disappointed. Pappy Van Winkle's 23 should be added to your system page under tweaks. Along with tubes (http://www.stereophile.com/content/god-nuances), the 23 may make your more laissez faire about room acoustics. Not a bad thing.... |
I just find a lot of made up excuses when it comes to treatments. Most people spend leagues of time worrying about the wrong things--when room/speaker makes by far makes the biggest difference in sound. Even 213Cobra has never tried an external piece of room treatment in his room, so until then all of his opinion is really just pure speculation. agreed.... Could it be improved by room treatments? Perhaps. But these room treatments would necessarily affect the visual appeal of the room; and this is a compromise that is not acceptable - to me, at least. Gsm18439, looking at your space, I can understand your reluctance. Stellar aesthetically. DSP or digital domain correction is still a potential option for many and is obviously the future.... |
After all, the loudspeaker -- even a good one -- is the most egregious contributor of distortion of all the gear in the chain, and it functions into an acoustic space interface that further influences it. Absolutely true. That's why so few speaker manufacturers offer "distortion" specs like other components. |
You reap as you sow Mr Anderson.
Did you ever have the Defs on Sistrum or just Equarack and Stillpoints? |
Glory has. Email him. The Sanders stuff is spectacular IMO. |
Schw06, how about some system pics homebrew? That would help people visualize this.... |
