Are you a tone guy or a details-retrieval guy?

[magiccarpetride]

Of course, the easy answer is 'both'. But that's easier said than done.

I keep discovering that it is very challenging to upgrade/tweak my system and make equally significant improvements in both the quality of the tone and the details retrieval. Usually the tweak/upgrade is asymmetrical. Either it improves the tone of the system, at the expense of some details retrieval, or the other way around.

And it's not only me; I've noticed similar trajectory as I'm following upgrades/tweaks that my buddies are making. Some of them tend to lean more toward favouring detail retrieval and are okay with sacrificing some of the tone density and thickness, others are more into chasing after lovely tone, even if it means some of the finer details get lost.

I'd be curious to hear what others on this fine forum think about this issue. Or, maybe it's all just a figment of my imagination? Maybe all power amps sound the same?

[Firebottle]

All power amps don't sound the same by any means.

The tone will alter dependant to some extent on how well the amp 'grips' the speakers, or to put another way how the amp responds to changing or peaky impedance of said speaker across the frequency range.

Another observation is that in general Class A amps give a purity to the sound IME, more than likely due to lower distortion.

I like to hear every detail in the recording so tend to design for lowest distortion.

:)

[Macca]

Tone first for me, cannot listen to a system that is at all hard or harsh.

I think the two probably go together to an extent. It is all down to noise and distortion at end of day. The 'tone' should be dependant on the recording, not the system. As things get better the differences in the recordings become more apparent (not difference as in good or bad but just the different choices made by the musicians and the engineers, instruments, mikes, the set up, the recording space or spaces, production, post production etc).

The good sound is there on the disc or the file, the kit can only spoil it to a greater or lesser degree.

Tweaks that improve one thing at the expense of another are worthless IMO.

[Yomanze]

Tone and timbre over forensic detail for me, and I like vocal sibilance to be bang on, not spotlit. As mentioned a lot of this is down to production and mastering rather than the system itself. Nothing will rescue a Led Zeppelin CD. [emoji14]

[Boyse6748]

Well, I sort of agree with both of you. Tweaks can often ruin a system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Boyse6748]

Sorry , pressed the sent to soon.

Going from above, in my case I've reverted from an independent MC phono stage to a SUT at my detriment. As Alan pointed out, perhaps it's not the SUT that's at fault and maybe it's the Amp.

I never realised my beloved McIntosh was anything other than perfect..... but how wrong you can be.

Now looking for a replacement MC phono stage to get things into perspective.

We live and learn

Peter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Puffin]

Everything in equal measure. Synergy is what you must have between all your bits (IMO of course)

[RobbieGong]

Detail tone AND texture / timbre for me, getting there and think it can be achieved ;)

[walpurgis]

Everything in equal measure. Synergy is what you must have between all your bits (IMO of course)

I'd go along with that.

[Yomanze]

IMO it's a lot easier to get the detail bit right than the tone and timbre. If you get the tone and timbre right then the detail is almost a given.

[alphaGT]

This is a tough question.

Recently when I got the new Krell, it corrected the tone by an order of magnitude! Nice, warm, full, round! Iron fist in the velvet glove. But, after listening for a time, adjusting the speaker placement, getting the massive bass under control, suddenly now I am hearing all kinds of detail! Hearing things I've never noticed before! So I guess it is possible to help both at once? But replacing an amp is no basic tweak. I moved up about 5 steps at once with the amp. So I guess one may expect both? And what Alan was saying about Class A amps, it certainly true. Eliminating crossover distortion is a major step in the right direction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Arkless Electronics]

Sorry , pressed the sent to soon.

Going from above, in my case I've reverted from an independent MC phono stage to a SUT at my detriment. As Alan pointed out, perhaps it's not the SUT that's at fault and maybe it's the Amp.

I never realised my beloved McIntosh was anything other than perfect..... but how wrong you can be.

Now looking for a replacement MC phono stage to get things into perspective.

We live and learn

Peter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You want to try this ;) http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?41681-Anyone-want-to-try-my-new-hybrid-MC-phono-stage
PM if interested. I also do a high end head amp http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?48379-A-Head-Amp-underway-for-a-customer and review here http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?48779-Arkless-MC-Head-Amp-Full-Review

[Macca]

Not sure if the class A thing is the key. Some of the best power amps I have heard are not class A. Radford STA15, for e,g

Although of all the amps I own or have owned the two class A ones are the best. But that is more coincidence I think.

[Marco]

Both! And you can have both, if you match your system components well, especially when high-quality valve amps are used, which major on tone and timbre :)

But - if I had to only choose one or the other, then it would be tone (and timbre) every time. The detail retrieval vs. tone thing is highlighted best in moving-coil cartridges. Listen to a vintage Ortofon SPU (or Denon 103) and, say, a modern Audio-Technica or Lyra (anything), and you'll fundamentally *get* what the above is about!

The same happens with speakers when listening to, say, a well-sorted pair of vintage Tannoy DCs, or something with the musicality measured out of it, such as TADs/Magicos.

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

Not sure if the class A thing is the key. Some of the best power amps I have heard are not class A. Radford STA15, for e,g

Although of all the amps I own or have owned the two class A ones are the best. But that is more coincidence I think.

It will give several Watts in class A.

[magiccarpetride]

Both! And you can have both, if you match your system components well, especially when high-quality valve amps are used, which major on tone and timbre :)

But - if I had to only choose one or the other, then it would be tone (and timbre) every time. The detail retrieval vs. tone thing is highlighted best in moving-coil cartridges.

Listen to a vintage Ortofon SPU (or Denon 103) and, say, a modern Audio-Technica or Lyra (anything), and you'll fundamentally *get* what the above is about! The same happens with speakers when listening to, say, a well-sorted pair of vintage Tannoy DCs, or some TADs/Magicos.

Marco.

My Denon DL-103 was exactly what nudged me to originally ask this question. I've noticed that when I play the same track on Denon DL-103, and then on my digital system, the huge difference that immediately punches me in the face is *tone*! That vintage DL-103 tone is all but absent from the digital playback, but then digital seems to etch, carve in space instruments a bit sharper. So that to me reads as 'pick and choose -- you want that rich silky creamy sweet vintage tone, or you want that ultra high def details retrieval?'

Luckily, I can have both (but alas not at the same time)

[Marco]

My Denon DL-103 was exactly what nudged me to originally ask this question.


Interesting! :)


I've noticed that when I play the same track on Denon DL-103, and then on my digital system, the huge difference that immediately punches me in the face is *tone*! That vintage DL-103 tone is all but absent from the digital playback...

Then. Alex, you need to get yourself a quality vintage CD player (one that features a TDA1541-based DAC), to get that 'tone', and then modify key parts of its circuit with the best modern components, to get the necessary detail retrieval - and with it the bests of both worlds!

Then 'say hello' to what I hear in my system everyday..... ;)

Marco.

[magiccarpetride]

Interesting! :)



Then. Alex, you need to get yourself a quality vintage CD player (one that features a TDA1541-based DAC), to get that 'tone', and then modify key parts of its circuit with the best modern components, to get the necessary detail retrieval - and with it the bests of both worlds!

Then 'say hello' to what I hear in my system everyday..... ;)

Marco.

So that means that the most perfect listening experience is digital.

[Marco]

Nah - as usual it's not that simple. In reality, there is no 'perfect' anything in hi-fi - it's all about choosing the compromises you can live with the most, and ultimately what pleases YOUR ears :)

Marco.

[Bonky]

Nah - as usual it's not that simple. In reality, there is no 'perfect' anything in hi-fi - it's all about choosing the compromises you can live with the most, and ultimately what pleases YOUR ears :)

Marco.

Wise words!

R.

[Macca]

My Denon DL-103 was exactly what nudged me to originally ask this question. I've noticed that when I play the same track on Denon DL-103, and then on my digital system, the huge difference that immediately punches me in the face is *tone*! That vintage DL-103 tone is all but absent from the digital playback, but then digital seems to etch, carve in space instruments a bit sharper. So that to me reads as 'pick and choose -- you want that rich silky creamy sweet vintage tone, or you want that ultra high def details retrieval?'

Luckily, I can have both (but alas not at the same time)

I'm not up on DACs but there are a fair few CD players that will give you that *tone*.

[magiccarpetride]

I'm not up on DACs but there are a fair few CD players that will give you that *tone*.

Cool. Know of any TT config that would retain that *tone* while adding awesome resolution/imaging/detail retrieval? The reason I ask is because I'm not using CDs anymore, only streaming FLAC, WAV, AIFF...

[walpurgis]

I'm not up on DACs but there are a fair few CD players that will give you that *tone*.

Quite right. I own some. Meridian and Pioneer for a start.

[walpurgis]

Know of any TT config that would retain that *tone* while adding awesome resolution/imaging/detail retrieval?

There are limitless answers to that question.

[magiccarpetride]

Quite right. I own some. Meridian and Pioneer for a start.

So if those CD players manage to retain that *tone* PLUS add intricate details that are missing from DL-103, they must be superior to the good old vintage turntable listening experience.

[magiccarpetride]

There are limitless answers to that question.

Hit me with some highlights (I have never heard any TT configuration that approaches that unique Denon DL-103 tone, so naturally I'm very curious to learn).

[walpurgis]

So if those CD players manage to retain that *tone* PLUS add intricate details that are missing from DL-103, they must be superior to the good old vintage turntable listening experience.

How would you come to offer that assumption?

[magiccarpetride]

Wise words!

R.

Right. What pleases my ears is that fat juicy Denon DL-103 sound coupled with very fine detail retrieval. How to get there?

[Jimbo]

I think you need both. Without detail tone alone does not give you the nuances and micro detail you need to make a recording sound real and 'live'.

Just been listening to my system and it has both which gives a tangible reality to the music. If recordings are poorly executed or mastered missing detail can make them sound dull and lifeless. Of course you need a system with enough resolution to extract this information.

Beyond tone and detail however I look for or should I say listen for the complex harmonics that instruments and vocals can produce which adds another dimension to the tone and acoustic clues which give the music realism.

[walpurgis]

Right. What pleases my ears is that fat juicy Denon DL-103 sound coupled with very fine detail retrieval. How to get there?

Spend more money.

Many are fond of the DL-103. I've had several, but not been quite as struck by them. I found them pleasant enough (at the price), but would far sooner use a Decca, ZYX or perhaps Koetsu.

An SPU E might suit you, if you want a big rich sweet sound with detail.

[Marco]

I'm not up on DACs but there are a fair few CD players that will give you that *tone*.

Yes, but not how I think you mean it, in terms of imbuing the sound with a rose-tinted coloration. Correct me if I'm wrong there, though...

However, what I'm referring to by 'tone' (and I think Alex is also) is a natural warmth and richness, which is very much a vital part of the sound of real instruments and voices, but often 'emasculated' by some equipment, usually of the modern variety.

It takes us back to the whole issue again of 'voicing'...

To my ears, there has unquestionably been a sea-change in the type of sound that is considered now as 'the norm' or 'correct', and reproduced by today's hi-fi equipment and speakers, compared with how things were in that respect, 20-30 years ago - and it's smack-bang in the zone of trading 'tone' for detail retrieval and some false notion of 'squeaky-clean clarity', which computer software/measurements say is 'accurate', but (discerning) human ears don't.

And for me, it's a major contributory factor as to why many find digital music replay harsh, cold, 'grey and lifeless', or whatever, simply because the majority of digital equipment today has the type of sound I've described in the previous paragraph 'designed in', simply to comply with what these days is considered commercially as 'accurate', which trust me, it isn't! ;)

I could talk about this much more, but I'll leave it there for now.

Marco.

[Marco]

So if those CD players manage to retain that *tone* PLUS add intricate details that are missing from DL-103, they must be superior to the good old vintage turntable listening experience.

Nope - now you're guilty of simplistic thinking! ;)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Some good older CD players possess what some may describe as an 'analogue' character, which is why I mentioned Meridian and Pioneer. The Meridian 206 and Pioneer PD-S505 Precision for instance, sound remarkably pleasant. They are not the last word in extreme resolution, but not bad at all. And they are very nice to listen to.

[Jimbo]

I think digital does detail very well but not sure about tone?

[Marco]

Some good older CD players possess what some may describe as an 'analogue' character...

Indeed, but that's analogue at its best and most musically natural, not woolly, warm-sounding analogue... ;)

Marco.

[Marco]

I think digital does detail very well but not sure about tone?

Have you ever heard a top-notch Philips TDA1541-based CDP or DAC, Jim? They have tone to die for, trust me, and can sound almost as 'analogue' as any good turntable... :)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

I think digital does detail very well but not sure about tone?

"Tone" from record playing equipment will vary as much as that from CD replay. You can achieve warm and cuddly or finely etched from either medium.

Of course you can totally mess up both and easily end up with 'thick and unrevealing' or 'screechingly harsh'!!

[Jimbo]

Have you ever heard a top-notch TDA1541-based CDP or DAC, Jim? They have tone to die for, trust me :)

Marco.

I have heard some amazing DAC's but not based around a TDA1541.

[magiccarpetride]

Nope - now you're guilty of simplistic thinking! ;)

Marco.

Guilty as charged.

[Jimbo]

"Tone" from record playing equipment will vary as much as that from CD replay. You can achieve warm and cuddly or finely etched from either medium.

Of course you can totally mess up both and easily end up with 'thick and unrevealing' or 'screechingly harsh'!!

I agree Geoff but I find tone done well from a vinyl playback system sounds better or nicer to listen too than digital. There are very complex harmonics that make up tone and I don't think digital handles this as convincingly, at least to my ear.

[walpurgis]

I agree Geoff but I find tone done well from a vinyl playback system sounds better or nicer to listen too than digital. There are very complex harmonics that make up tone and I don't think digital handles this as convincingly, at least to my ear.

In your experience James.

Shame you are not nearer. My system might change your mind. I rate my results from vinyl and CD as equally good.

[Jimbo]

In your experience James.

Shame you are not nearer. My system might change your mind. I rate my results from vinyl and CD as equally good.

If I am ever down your way Geoff I would certainly like to hear your system or should I say systems? Be great to hear what you get out of your Decca!

[magiccarpetride]

Yes, but not how I think you mean it, in terms of imbuing the sound with a rose-tinted coloration. Correct me if I'm wrong there, though...

However, what I'm referring to by 'tone' (and I think Alex is also) is a natural warmth and richness, which is very much a vital part of the sound of real instruments and voices, but often 'emasculated' by some equipment, usually of the modern variety.

It takes us back to the whole issue again of 'voicing'...

To my ears, there has unquestionably been a sea-change in the type of sound that is considered now as 'the norm' or 'correct', and reproduced by today's hi-fi equipment and speakers, compared with how things were in that respect, 20-30 years ago - and it's smack-bang in the zone of trading 'tone' for detail retrieval and some false notion of 'squeaky-clean clarity', which computer software/measurements say is 'accurate', but (discerning) human ears don't.

And for me, it's a major contributory factor as to why many find digital music replay harsh, cold, 'grey and lifeless', or whatever, simply because the majority of digital equipment today has the type of sound I've described in the previous paragraph 'designed in', simply to comply with what these days is considered commercially as 'accurate', which trust me, it isn't! ;)

I could talk about this much more, but I'll leave it there for now.

Marco.

I would agree with this, especially with regards to classical/vintage gear vis a vis beefy 'modern' gear. A friend of mine who is an avid audio lover (some would almost say 'phile'), and heads and shoulders above me in terms of his acumen, experience and willingness to risk his rock solid marriage by stretching the hi fi budget, scoffed at me when he heard that I switched to Maggies. He said he had listened to all kinds of Maggies for years and to his ears they all sounded like shite. I felt very bad to hear that, and yet for some reason I felt that the sound I'm getting out of my Maggies is to die for. So I stuck with them.

Then he paid me a visit, and sat down for a listen. It was almost as he's seen a ghost, because my Maggies just blew him out of the room! He said there must be some dark, dark witchcraft going on, as it is literally illegal for Maggies to sound this full-bodied.

But there was no witchcraft -- it's just the fact that I'm using the old school, first gen Maggies (before they grew into the rarified 'hi fi' arena). So yes, modern Maggies sound like a hologram, not like real instruments. But my old school beat up Maggies do sound like real, full-bodied instruments.

So my explanation is that it's down to so-called 'vintage' equipment. Equipment designed and built in times when there were no audiophiles, just sincere listeners to turntables.

Same applies to Denon DL-103, Systemdek, etc. People who were being fed a steady diet of beefy ultra high end hi fi scoff at those lowly workhorses, but I'm enjoying them immensely nevertheless.

[Marco]

I have heard some amazing DAC's but not based around a TDA1541.

They are notoriously expensive to optimise (in terms of PSU arrangements), but once done, the results are magical, and if you didn't already have a turntable, you honestly wouldn't want for one.

Problem is, it's not as simple as just finding a vintage CDP that uses 1541s, as unfortunately most of the partnering circuit components will be inferior to the best of what's produced now, so you'll hear the beguiling sonic signature of the 1541s, but spoiled by the limitations of the dated components sharing the same circuit, which is where judicious modifications come in, so that one 'marries' the best of old and new :)

One of the few relatively modern CDPs, featuring TDA1541s I'd recommend, which if functioning optimally, wouldn't need much, if anything, done to it is the original Naim CDS - a truly cracking example of a 'proper' CD player that will let you hear exactly what the format can do. Also, some of the top-loading Micromega players, from the 90s, come into that category, which also sound 'vinyl-like' in a good sense, and have that tone thing going on in spades.

Marco.

[YNWaN]

Personally, I am 'all about' the subtle interplay, counterpoint and dynamic contrast rather than the accuracy of tonality.

[walpurgis]

Be great to hear what you get out of your Decca!

I have a couple but I'm not currently using a Decca. Just removed a very nice ADC 10E Mk.II from my tonearm though. I think a ZYX R100 H may be up next :).

[walpurgis]

Personally, I am 'all about' the subtle interplay, counterpoint and dynamic contrast rather than the accuracy of tonality.

Mmm. I think in similar ways to an extent. Probably comes from being a pretty decent classical pianist when I was much younger.

[magiccarpetride]

I agree Geoff but I find tone done well from a vinyl playback system sounds better or nicer to listen too than digital. There are very complex harmonics that make up tone and I don't think digital handles this as convincingly, at least to my ear.

I concur. Another thing I'm getting out of Denon DL-103 that I haven't heard delivered by any other configuration so far, is that almost indescribable *weight* of the sound. It's not just the palpable weight of Billy Cobham's kick and toms and snare, it's also the palpable metallic weight of his cymbals. Everything sounds heavy, full bodied, saturated, dripping with musical substance. I've never heard anything like that before (especially not in digital playback). Truth be told, DL-103 is not giving me imaging and soundstage that digital does, but I'm gladly trading that experience for this celebratory, joyful experience of hearing musical instruments lay in on me with all their weight!

[Marco]

Then he paid me a visit, and sat down for a listen. It was almost as he's seen a ghost, because my Maggies just blew him out of the room! He said there must be some dark, dark witchcraft going on, as it is literally illegal for Maggies to sound this full-bodied.

But there was no witchcraft -- it's just the fact that I'm using the old school, first gen Maggies (before they grew into the rarified 'hi fi' arena). So yes, modern Maggies sound like a hologram, not like real instruments. But my old school beat up Maggies do sound like real, full-bodied instruments.


Yup - a classic (and very valid) example of how we can *so* easily get sucked into the notion that the 'latest and greatest' is automatically the best, and that new technology always succeeds in creating genuine advances in sound quality, when quite often the reverse is true.

You have to remember, in order to stay in business, that's what hi-fi manufacturers and dealers WANT you to believe, so fall for it at your peril... I've experienced what you've just described numerous times, especially with speakers. Why else do you think I use big 'old wardrobes' (Tannoy DCs), from the 1960s, and fill the crossovers with the best of modern components?

Jeez, even my 'lowly' Celestion 15XRs, which back in the day (before my time) were considered as nothing special at all... And yet placed on suitable stands, with a couple of cap changes and a few other tweaks carried out, are transformed into truly high-quality standmounts that would rival much of what is made in that respect now, but at a fraction of the price!

Your Maggies were made in the days when equipment wasn't 'built by accountants' and/or 'voiced' by computers. Genuine innovation was taking place and the creativity and passion of designers was allowed to run free - and all that is reflected in what you're hearing, so stick with them and enjoy :cool:

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

Cool. Know of any TT config that would retain that *tone* while adding awesome resolution/imaging/detail retrieval? The reason I ask is because I'm not using CDs anymore, only streaming FLAC, WAV, AIFF...

What have you done with respect to the Squeezebox Touch?

[magiccarpetride]

What have you done with respect to the Squeezebox Touch?

I've modded my Touch sixteen ways to Sunday. Ended up having a number of profile scripts, which I can execute at will. Was aiming for the greasy, oily sound that I finally found in Denon DL-103. But Touch is an awesome little computer, and if you're a Linux engineer, and willing to roll up your sleeves and dick around with daemon jobs, buffer sizes, thread priorities etc., you can affect the sound in no insignificant amount.

Still, nothing comes even close to this monster DL-103 coupled with good SUT and a nice little Emotiva XPS-1!

[Marco]

Personally, I am 'all about' the subtle interplay, counterpoint and dynamic contrast rather than the accuracy of tonality.

And is that what you get off on, when sat at a concert listening to live music? ;)

I'm being facetious, of course, and I value those things too and consider them important, in terms of achieving realism, but the accurate portrayal of tone (and timbre) is *vital* if ultimately a guitar is to sound like a REAL guitar, and a piano like a piano, etc, as opposed to a cardboard cutout of such - and there is no getting away from that fact either.

Marco.

[magiccarpetride]

Yup - a classic (and very valid) example of how we can *so* easily get sucked into the notion that the 'latest and greatest' is automatically the best, and that new technology always succeeds in creating genuine advances in sound quality, when quite often the reverse is true.

You have to remember, in order to stay in business, that's what hi-fi manufacturers and dealers WANT you to believe, so fall for it at your peril... I've experienced what you've just described numerous times, especially with speakers. Why else do you think I use big 'old wardrobes' (Tannoy DCs), from the 1960s, and fill the crossovers with the best of modern components?

Jeez, even my 'lowly' Celestion 15XRs, which back in the day (before my time) were considered as nothing special at all... And yet placed on suitable stands, with a couple of cap changes and a few other tweaks carried out, are transformed into truly high-quality standmounts that would rival much of what is made in that respect now, but at a fraction of the price!

Your Maggies were made in the days when equipment wasn't 'built by accountants' and/or 'voiced' by computers. Genuine innovation was taking place and the creativity and passion of designers was allowed to run free - and all that is reflected in what you're hearing, so stick with them and enjoy :cool:

Marco.

You're absolutely right. I feel that my old Maggies were made with so much passion, so much care, back in the day when their creator was out to prove himself, to prove it to the world that yes, you can make a box-less speaker that will be warm, that will have substance, slam and weight just the same as a good boxed speakers can. That, plus the famous airiness, absence of coloration, and absence of any congestion.

[Marco]

I concur. Another thing I'm getting out of Denon DL-103 that I haven't heard delivered by any other configuration so far, is that almost indescribable *weight* of the sound. It's not just the palpable weight of Billy Cobham's kick and toms and snare, it's also the palpable metallic weight of his cymbals. Everything sounds heavy, full bodied, saturated, dripping with musical substance. I've never heard anything like that before (especially not in digital playback). Truth be told, DL-103 is not giving me imaging and soundstage that digital does, but I'm gladly trading that experience for this celebratory, joyful experience of hearing musical instruments lay in on me with all their weight!

That's *exactly* how a 103 should sound ('meaty', 'chunky' and 'big-boned'). Those are the traits it majors in, when heard at its best.

It's not perfect, as you've alluded to (nothing is), but the vast majority of modern cartridges fail to deliver the weight and authority you've described, which provides music with the 'firm foundation' it needs, in order to sound like REAL music, rather than a poor facsimile of such.

Marco.

[alphaGT]

I tell you guys, my CD player I bought used last year, is about 5 years old now. A Cary 306. And I am just wowed by the sound! Not digital at all, very full and weighty, with detail, but it doesn't hit you over the head with it. It's there if you want to listen in, but if you want to just set back and feel the emotion of the music, it's right there. To be honest I don't know much about the insides. But Cary did a fine job on this unit. It almost rivals my record player! For a time, I thought it was actually better! But, I got over it. Good vinyl is hard to beat. But I don't mind playing CD's, they can really 'do it' for me, and surpasses my old CD player by a mile. Which was an old Sony ES, that did many things right. I never felt the urge to replace it until the laser started to fail. I never knew Digital could be this good. Best of both worlds? Tuneful and detail, although I do credit a lot of it to the synergy of the system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marco]

Hi Russell,

Yes, and the reason why that's the case is because your CDP isn't commercially mass-produced, and instead was made by a relatively small, specialist manufacturer with the ability (and desire) to produce something really good, and which is different from the norm.

Such things still exist (and represent the 10% of CDPs made now that are worth having), but for how much longer will it be commercially viable for such players to be produced? So enjoy it and treasure it for as long as you can! :)

Marco.

[Marco]

Here you are, Alex, as I mentioned earlier, get one of these and 'Lampy' it:

http://www.lampizator.eu/lampizator/REFERENCES/NAIM/NAIM%20CDS-1.html

;)

Marco.

[Marco]

Or if you can find one, a Micromega Trio:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/EmJdMm.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmEmJdMmj)

A truly stunning sounding player that will make you forget all about vinyl, and allow you to hear your CDs like never before! ;)

Check this out for coolness:

JkuD_VUTDWw


Even the little 'Solo' sounded great. Check out the bass intro on Queen's 'Another One Bites The Dust' (2nd track played):

2Yk3cAWUcbw

Now *that* is 'analogue chunky', oh yeah...! :eyebrows:

No tonally thin, 'monochromatic' sound there. Just imagine what it'd sound like on a decent system in real life.... Themz are PROPA CD players!! :exactly:

Marco.

[Jimbo]

I have a couple but I'm not currently using a Decca. Just removed a very nice ADC 10E Mk.II from my tonearm though. I think a ZYX R100 H may be up next :).

Just sold my ADC mk2 improved. Damn good cartridges those old ADC but suspension bit iffy.

[Macca]

Yes, but not how I think you mean it, in terms of imbuing the sound with a rose-tinted coloration. Correct me if I'm wrong there, though...

.

Yes to a degree but isn't that also what the Denon cartridge is doing compared to, say, a good Audio Technica?

It isn't hard to buy a coloured cd player these days, they all seem to be coloured to pander to the 'I want digital to sound like vinyl' brigade. Of course they don't sound like vinyl, nor do they sound like the recording - worst of both worlds IMO but it is personal taste as always. That's one of the reasons that I like the old flagship players, designed to get the best out of it without trying to jazz it up. That all stopped when they realised most people don't want that sort of presentation, they want digital to sound like their records. It don't and never will so get over it.

Asking me for advice about vinyl replay is like asking Jeffrey Archer for advice about honesty. So all I would say is:

Get as good a phono stage as you can is my advice to the o/p, worry about the cartridge later. I thought that the Denon DLS1 Marco had for a while was a great balance between detail and tone and a major step up on the 103 but keeping the same basic characteristics. But IME it is the phono stage that is make or break. I think a competent cart with a very good phono stage is better than a really good cart with a merely competent phono stage.

[Haselsh1]

Yeah I think the answer has to be both as I use a valve amp for tone but the sources are set up for detail retrieval especially the M-DAC on the digital side of things.

[Stratmangler]

I've modded my Touch sixteen ways to Sunday. Ended up having a number of profile scripts, which I can execute at will. Was aiming for the greasy, oily sound that I finally found in Denon DL-103. But Touch is an awesome little computer, and if you're a Linux engineer, and willing to roll up your sleeves and dick around with daemon jobs, buffer sizes, thread priorities etc., you can affect the sound in no insignificant amount.

Still, nothing comes even close to this monster DL-103 coupled with good SUT and a nice little Emotiva XPS-1!

I'll take that as you've been pissing about with software.
Have you done anything fundamental, such as changing the PSU?

[Marco]

Yes to a degree but isn't that also what the Denon cartridge is doing compared to, say, a good Audio Technica?


Nope, not at all...! How can you say that? You obviously haven't read and/or understood a word I've written here, or crucially, post #31, part of which you've just quoted :doh:

Please read it again, and you should understand that I'm NOT talking about adding coloration, but rather that there is something fundamentally missing (that should be there in the first place, namely natural warmth and richness), which cartridges such as modern Audio Technica's (their older ranges don't do it to anything like the same degree), strip from the sound, thus pushing forward midrange and upper-frequencies to give the impression of increased detail, simply to comply with what today is considered as 'accurate'.

If anything is coloured (in that respect), therefore, it's the Audio Technica, not the Denon... Since you mention the DL-S1, that's another good example. Compare it with, say, an OC-9, and what I'm describing, unless you are deaf, will also hit you right between the ears! ;)


It isn't hard to buy a coloured cd player these days, they all seem to be coloured to pander to the 'I want digital to sound like vinyl' brigade. Of course they don't sound like vinyl, nor do they sound like the recording - worst of both worlds IMO but it is personal taste as always. That's one of the reasons that I like the old flagship players, designed to get the best out of it without trying to jazz it up.


You're right in some ways, and that happened for a while, but in reality new CD players these days no longer sound that way - quite the opposite in fact, and that's mostly since proper CD-only mechs were abandoned for cheap, plastic DVD-ROMs, and ditto with linear PSUs for cheap switch-mode varieties.

And btw, whilst you're right about the old flagship players, they also possessed the 'tone' we're discussing in spades. Trust me, it's one of the reasons why my Sony sounds the way it does!

What did you think of the Micromega players on the YouTube clips? Hard to tell with such vids, I know, but if you heard one in the flesh I think you'd love what they do.


Get as good a phono stage as you can is my advice to the o/p, worry about the cartridge later. I thought that the Denon DLS1 Marco had for a while was a great balance between detail and tone and a major step up on the 103 but keeping the same basic characteristics. But IME it is the phono stage that is make or break. I think a competent cart with a very good phono stage is better than a really good cart with a merely competent phono stage.

I agree, but *first and foremost*, with vinyl replay, it's the quality of the turnable itself (and all its constituent parts) that matters most. If that isn't up to scratch, then no phono stage in the world can make up for that! :)

Marco.

[Macca]

. What did you think of the Micromega players on the YouTube clips?

.

I have heard a Micromega player, wasn't that impressed but was in someone else's system so not possible to isolate it from the other components. Likewise with the you-tube clips, even worse, as there you are listening to an unknown system, transmitted with a lossy codec, through laptop speakers. Forget about it. Maybe it can give a slight idea, not enough for me to form any serious judgement though.

I understand your point about the cartridges, hence my preference for something like the DLS1 or Nagaokas, over a more 'modern' sounding cart like an OC9 or that SPU you used to have. I don't like vinyl to sound clinical, I don't see the point. Much easier, if you want that sound, to get it from digital sources instead. Cheaper, too.

[Joe]

On balance, more a tone than details guy. I tend to listen almost exclusively to CDs these days for reasons of a) laziness and b) knowing most of my vinyl collection off by heart. When I do compare formats, I don't think one is markedly superior to the other. What does surprise me is how good the relatively basic 'upstairs' vinyl system sounds: (AR turntable, Rega TB250 tonearm, Ortofon MC10 cartridge). It majors on 'presence' rather than detail, but is always great fun to listen to.

[take5]

Tone for me...every time.

Tone quality is to do with music

Other stuff... image,soundstage etc etc is to do with Hi Fi... all just IMHO, of course

The more I got into this Hi fi hobby, the more I found myself going towards the Hi Fi stuff.
Bad news............ which Im trying to deal with at the moment

[Marco]

I have heard a Micromega player, wasn't that impressed but was in someone else's system so not possible to isolate it from the other components. Likewise with the you-tube clips, even worse, as there you are listening to an unknown system, transmitted with a lossy codec, through laptop speakers. Forget about it. Maybe it can give a slight idea, not enough for me to form any serious judgement though.


Yes I agree, but I know exactly what the best Micromega players sound like, as I've owned a Duo, which was the one down from their flagship Trio, and so can more readily identify their sonic signature, even in a YouTube clip.

Limitations of that aside though, you should still be able to get an inkling of what I'm referring to, if you listen to the bass line I mentioned on the Queen track. Turn it up, and even through shitty computer speakers, there's a real weight and 'purposefulness' to it that simply isn't there in modern CD players - and it is *that* which helps provides the 'tone' that makes the best vintage players sound 'analogue-like'.

Aside from that though, top-loading CDPs look cool, especially ones with big, chunky acrylic lids! The whole process of loading a disc manually like that also makes it feel more like you're playing a record - and the fact that, all else being equal, manual operating top-loaders generally sound better, isn't an accident either.


I understand your point about the cartridges...


Good! It didn't appear that way from your last post, or perhaps I misread it? Easily done, as I was up to nearly 3am listening to music, and not long up, so not really 'focussed' yet! :eyebrows:


...hence my preference for something like the DLS1 or Nagaokas, over a more 'modern' sounding cart like an OC9 or that SPU you used to have. I don't like vinyl to sound clinical, I don't see the point. Much easier, if you want that sound, to get it from digital sources instead. Cheaper, too.

Exactly. Your Naga is another good example of what we're discussing.

The main point I'm trying to make, however, is that it's commonly considered that the 103, DL-S1, SPU, Nagaoka, etc, are more coloured sounding (less 'accurate') than OC-9s, Lyras, etc, simply because the clinical nature of the latter is deemed as facilitating their greater 'accuracy', when I would contend that the opposite is true, for reasons previously explained.

Marco.

[Marco]

What does surprise me is how good the relatively basic 'upstairs' vinyl system sounds: (AR turntable, Rega TB250 tonearm, Ortofon MC10 cartridge). It majors on 'presence' rather than detail, but is always great fun to listen to.

Rest assured, Joe, that your ears aren't deceiving you.

The best vintage gear generally is more fun to listen to, simply because (for reasons I've already outlined), some of the 'fun factor' has been sucked out of the sound of today's kit, and traded instead for some false notion of 'accuracy' - and you can hear it in exactly the way you've described.

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Still, nothing comes even close to this monster DL-103 coupled with good SUT and a nice little Emotiva XPS-1!

What SUT might that be? Denon MC's definitely need a decent one.

[Yomanze]

Another observation is that you can never have enough tone and timbre, but you can easily have too much detail, there is a point when you have enough detail to be musically credible​. Note I said tone and not euphonic distortion, which is a totally different subject.

[Marco]

Indeed, Neil. Especially true is your last sentence, yet many folks don't seem to 'get' it...

The reason for that, IMO, is because their ears have been conditioned for years (by manufacturers) into thinking that the sonic presentation I've described with a lot of today's kit is correct.

Therefore, it automatically follows that when you hear something which notably deviates from that, it's considered as wrong, hence not as 'accurate' - and measurements don't help in that respect either.

Marco.

[Macca]

Rest assured, Joe, that your ears aren't deceiving you.

The best vintage gear generally is more fun to listen to, simply because (for reasons I've already outlined), some of the 'fun factor' has been sucked out of the sound of today's kit, and traded instead for some false notion of 'accuracy' - and you can hear it in exactly the way you've described.

Marco.

I think you are right to put 'accuracy' in quotes, because I don't hear accuracy just a particular 'voicing' that I think is intended to give the illusion of forensic detail whilst majoring on the image/soundstage thing; but much as Brian is saying above, you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This seems to be considered a 'good sound' nowadays, at least by the people who are selling it and buying it. It is usually ruinously expensive and definitely not for me.

Perhaps there needs to be less concentration on the 'voicing' and more on the basic engineering, that is reducing noise and distortion as much as possible throughout the system. I know for me that since I dispensed with all the twaddle and adopted that approach I've made much better progress in getting to the sound I want.

[walpurgis]

Tone and timbre come from musical instruments and voices. Perhaps having it added to the sound from a Hi-Fi system is not good?

[Macca]

Tone and timbre come from musical instruments and voices. Perhaps having it added to the sound from a Hi-Fi system is not good?

The only way a system can add tone and timbre is by adding noise and distortion. The ideal system will add and take away nothing. In principle of course, in practice nothing is perfect.

[Marco]

Tone and timbre come from musical instruments and voices. Perhaps having it added to the sound from a Hi-Fi system is not good?

Agreed, Geoff, if in the instances we're discussing, that's what was happening, which it isn't.

It's more like some of the tone and timbre, inherent in musical and instruments and voices, is being subtracted (more accurately traded, as everything in audio is subject to some form of compromise) in favour of 'detail retrieval'.

And it's no 'accident' either. That type of 'voicing' by manufacturers is deliberate, simply because it's what folks have gotten used to these days, and thus consider as 'correct'!

Marco.

[walpurgis]

The only way a system can add tone and timbre is by adding noise and distortion. The ideal system will add and take away nothing. In principle of course, in practice nothing is perfect.

That is precisely what I was getting at.

[Macca]

I thought so. We is on the same page, then :)

[walpurgis]

The most obvious culprit (?) for adding 'tone and timbre' to the sound, is of course the speakers. All are coloured in one way or another and therefore impart artifacts/distortions.

Yes. Even the largely flawless Quad ESL is guilty of this.

[struth]

The most obvious culprit (?) for adding 'tone and timbre' to the sound, is of course the speakers. All are coloured in one way or another and therefore impart artifacts/distortions.

Yes. Even the largely flawless Quad ESL is guilty of this.

Especially if made of wood ;)

[Marco]

I think you are right to put 'accuracy' in quotes, because I don't hear accuracy just a particular 'voicing' that I think is intended to give the illusion of forensic detail whilst majoring on the image/soundstage thing; but much as Brian is saying above, you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This seems to be considered a 'good sound' nowadays, at least by the people who are selling it and buying it. It is usually ruinously expensive and definitely not for me.


We are in total agreement there :)


Perhaps there needs to be less concentration on the 'voicing' and more on the basic engineering, that is reducing noise and distortion as much as possible throughout the system.

Yes indeed, but in IMO, the 'voicing' you're referring to has resulted through manufacturers obsessing too much over how well something measures, at the expense of how good something sounds; in short too much attention paid to test equipment, and not enough use of ears!

The fact is, most commercially produced kit these days is made simply to be adequate or 'fit for purpose', rather than the best it possibly can, within a given price range, by someone with a passion and desire to do so, as indeed used to happen more at one time - and that's a MAJOR reason why the best vintage gear is often much nicer to listen to.

Marco.

[Macca]

The most obvious culprit (?) for adding 'tone and timbre' to the sound, is of course the speakers. All are coloured in one way or another and therefore impart artifacts/distortions.

Yes. Even the largely flawless Quad ESL is guilty of this.

True, worst are small 2 way speakers, regardless of how expensive or fancy they are, as much as 10% harmonic distortion in the bass. Okay so we are least sensitive to distortion in the bass frequencies, even so this will have a bad effect. I have seen people claim that because of this it is not worth worrying about much smaller levels of distortion further back in the chain. That's bollocks.

[Marco]

I thought so. We is on the same page, then :)

Lol... I'm not sure Geoff is on the same page as me in this matter, though. Care to confirm or not, Geoff?

Marco.

[Marco]

That is precisely what I was getting at.

Agreed! But....... Like I said, it's not all about falsely adding; in some instances it's about putting back what should've been there in the first place! ;)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Lol... I'm not sure Geoff is on the same page as me in this matter, though. Care to confirm or not, Geoff?

Marco.

In this respect, certainly.


It's more like some of the tone and timbre, inherent in musical and instruments and voices, is being subtracted (more accurately traded, as everything in audio is subject to some form of compromise) in favour of 'detail retrieval'.

And it's no 'accident' either. That type of 'voicing' by manufacturers is deliberate, simply because it's what folks have gotten used to these days, and thus consider as 'correct'!

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Especially if made of wood ;)

Yup. Plastic is the way to go! :D

[Marco]

Ok, that's cool. So which bit are we not on the same page about? Because I know there's something... I always like to know what folks think, even if it's the opposite of what I do. It's one way that you learn :)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

So which bit are we not on the same page about? Because I know there's something...

Marco.

Now you're confusing me Marco. Probably 'cos I still have a thick head from this damn cold! :)

[Marco]

Lol - ok, do you agree with post #83?

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

I don't see them as in any way mutually exclusive personally... I design equipment to give both :)

A personal bugbear is systems which are rounded off at both ends, especially the top end, to give that "this system ain't going to sound anything other than smooth and lush no matter what's on the recording" effect..... not for me!

A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

[walpurgis]

Lol - ok, do you agree with post #83?

Marco.



Like I said, it's not all about falsely adding; in some instances it's about putting back what should've been there in the first place! ;)

Marco.

Not entirely sure how one would 'put back' what may be missing.

[struth]

Retrieving perhaps is a better word.

[Marco]

Yeah, sure. Retrieving is exactly the word.

Geoff, what I'm getting at is that equipment, speakers, cartridges or whatever, are not simply guilty of ADDING things that shouldn't be there, but also subtracting what should - *and* the best equipment retrieves [thanks, Grant] what's been falsely taken away (e.g. by being more truthful, tonally), thus making the sound genuinely more accurate, in the true sense of the word, and in turn allowing recorded music to be reproduced more convincingly.

Are you with me? :)

And the best example of that process at work, IMO, is when some equipment (often of the modern variety) trades 'tone' for detail retrieval. However, the same can also apply the other way round!

Marco.

[Marco]

A personal bugbear is systems which are rounded off at both ends, especially the top end, to give that "this system ain't going to sound anything other than smooth and lush no matter what's on the recording" effect..... not for me!


Nor me... But then neither would a system that sounds falsely 'spotlit' and upfront, pretending to be 'accurate', be for me either. And a lot of stuff these days sounds like that. Mostly commercially produced kit though, not anything you or other small, specialist manufacturers would be likely to produce.


A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

Spot on! :thumbsup:

Marco.

[Macca]

Yeah, sure. Retrieving is exactly the word.

Geoff, what I'm getting at is that equipment, speakers, cartridges or whatever, are not simply guilty of ADDING things that shouldn't be there, but also subtracting what should - *and* the best equipment retrieves [thanks, Grant] what's been falsely taken away (e.g. by being more truthful, tonally), thus making the sound genuinely more accurate, in the true sense of the word, and in turn allowing music to be reproduced more convincingly.

Are you with me? :)

And the best example of that process at work, IMO, is when some equipment (often of the modern variety) trades 'tone' for detail retrieval.

Marco.

That's all fine but I would like to know by what process is modern equipment trading tone for detail? I mean specifically, in an amp or speakers say, what design choices will affect this? I can see how drive unit materials in a speaker could do this. Are we talking about using different types of capacitor and resistors, or amp circuit design, crossover design? All of them? Or something else entirely?

[Marco]

Well, that's a very good question, best answered though by someone who builds equipment. I can only report on what I hear ;)

But, much of it, IMO, occurs at the design stage, when too much measuring is done and not enough listening! Again, I'm talking mainly about commercially produced equipment here.

If you're that way inclined, it's all too easy fooling yourself into thinking that your oscilloscope is ultimately more musically truthful than your ears, when, if you have good ones, the very opposite is true.

Marco.

[Marco]

Oh, and you can obviously hear what I'm referring to yourself, Martin, as it's reflected in your cartridge choices! :)

Marco.

[Macca]

Aye but then I prefer my CD players to veer more to the clinical side. Don't get on with Rega's 'analogue sound' players, or a lot of the Marantz players: too sumptuous; or the upsampling players as they seem to have that 'fluffy bunny' presentation where nothing sounds 'solid'.

Most CD players are crap, really, regardless of the price or the badge. They don't need to be but they are. Not surprised most seem to prefer a good vinyl set up.

[Jimbo]

Aye but then I prefer my CD players to veer more to the clinical side. Don't get on with Rega's 'analogue sound' players, or a lot of the Marantz players: too sumptuous; or the upsampling players as they seem to have that 'fluffy bunny' presentation where nothing sounds 'solid'.

Most CD players are crap, really, regardless of the price or the badge. They don't need to be but they are. Not surprised most seem to prefer a good vinyl set up.

I definitely agree with your last paragraph Martin.:)

[RobbieGong]

Me too, there are a couple of cdp's i've heard though that were the exception so to speak, sounding analogue in the right way - I have one of them ;)

[Marco]

Aye but then I prefer my CD players to veer more to the clinical side.


Not clinical, just genuinely less coloured and more accurate. That's why you like the old flagship Sony players, as indeed I do.


Don't get on with Rega's 'analogue sound' players, or a lot of the Marantz players: too sumptuous; or the upsampling players as they seem to have that 'fluffy bunny' presentation where nothing sounds 'solid'.


I completely agree, and neither do I. For me, the sound they produce has obviously been tailored and designed to remove some of the 'nastiness' of CD, when if the player was designed properly in the first place, there would be no such nastiness.

The same can also be said about most players fitted with valve output stages. Unless done well, they're nothing but glorified tone controls.

Thing is, can you blame the manufacturers who produce stuff like that, with so many complaining that CD is 'bright and sterile', or whatever? All they're doing, I guess, is giving folks what they want! :doh:

That's the problem these days, especially with the sonic signature of equipment and speakers tilted towards the upper frequencies (superficially to sound 'impressive'), you can so easily over-egg the pudding, so why not just 'warm up' the sound of CD players to compensate?

'Arse about face', indeed! :rolleyes:

*However*, certain vintage players, as I mentioned earlier, DO sound 'analogue-like', for all the RIGHT reasons. Understanding what is right and wrong, in that respect though, is a little complicated. It just comes from experience, and I've been playing around with this stuff for a long time.

The sea-change in the 'voicing' of CDPs, however, occurred when the 'powers that be' decided in their, er 'infinite wisdom', that bitstream was better than multi-bit, and it largely went downhill from there....

Marco.

[Macca]

And that is before you start on weird speaker cables, weird interconnects and all the other gubbins that they sell to try and tame the bright and harsh sound that doesn't need to be there to begin with. Don't get me started. ;) As you say the punters are to blame, as are the reviewers and the magazines for all the bullshit over the years. The manufacturer just has to sell what is wanted or go broke.

[magiccarpetride]

I'll take that as you've been pissing about with software.
Have you done anything fundamental, such as changing the PSU?

Yes, of course. Threw away the original PSU and replaced it with a linear PSU at 5.00 V.

[magiccarpetride]

What SUT might that be? Denon MC's definitely need a decent one.

It's the SUT that a local TT enthusiast hand made (hand-wound) for me. Sounds thunderous with the MM stage of Emotiva!

[magiccarpetride]

A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

YES! And that's why I'm thinking that tone is king. If I'm listening to two systems, where one excels at detail retrieval, while the other excels at tone, the first system will make every recording sound as if cut from the same cloth, while the second system will reveal how utterly different each recording is. Awesome conclusion, Jez, nail hit right on the head!

[RobbieGong]

I don't see them as in any way mutually exclusive personally... I design equipment to give both :)

A personal bugbear is systems which are rounded off at both ends, especially the top end, to give that "this system ain't going to sound anything other than smooth and lush no matter what's on the recording" effect..... not for me!

A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

Absolutely spot on Jez !! the times i've said it too.

It was a light bulb moment for me and something I realised when I'd reached a certain point along the upgrade path.
So much 'crap' had been removed that my system had reached a stage where I could clearly hear that it was the recorded music that was playing and not the system
- evidenced as you've perfectly and simply expressed with each recording sounding different and individual which made total sense.
Everything we play isnt recorded or mixed the same way or in the same studio and so on and so on and therefore......................................... ..........;)

[magiccarpetride]

If I may summarize, this thread taught me some vitally important lessons:

We have reached the audio technology peak several decades ago. The advent of 'wearable listening' (walkmen, iPods, smartphones) signalled the end of the era of 'dedicated listening'. As the younger generations embraced the much maligned earbuds and lossy mp3 formats, the sales of high quality audio equipment started plummeting.

Add to that the thinning of the hi fi aficionados herd (old hippies tend to die, or at the very least, go deaf), and the manufacturers of high quality audio components were forced to invent sneaky new techniques for staying afloat. As Marco mentioned, instead of honouring the time proven approach of building quality components that retain the natural quality of the recorded sound, they started grooming their ever thinning audience to go after the fool's errand -- chasing the unicorn of that ever elusive 'sound of the walls of the recording venues'. Now instead of focusing on the tone and the natural timbre of the instruments and vocals, the newly minted audiophile crowd is straining to hear the "score pages being turned", or trying to catch those elusive tiny sounds that reveal how the instruments are being placed back on their stand. Of course, to be able to dig that deep into the recorded signal, you need to at least quadruple your budget. But that's okay, because now the tech is progressing, and we can indeed now enjoy intricate details that losers back in the '70s could never even dream of.

That's why going back to the quality vintage equipment reintroduces us to what music is all about -- NOT the sound of the walls, NOT the rustling of the music scores as the violinists are turning them, but the SOUND of the instruments as they are being played!

[Barry]

On balance, more a tone than details guy. I tend to listen almost exclusively to CDs these days for reasons of a) laziness and b) knowing most of my vinyl collection off by heart. When I do compare formats, I don't think one is markedly superior to the other. What does surprise me is how good the relatively basic 'upstairs' vinyl system sounds: (AR turntable, Rega TB250 tonearm, Ortofon MC10 cartridge). It majors on 'presence' rather than detail, but is always great fun to listen to.

Presence should never be confused with detail, especially as presence is a far more elusive quality and, for me, the more desirable: I want, if possible to be transported to the recording venue. That's not the same as "it's as if XXXX was/ playing in my listening room": I want to hear (again if possible) the walls of the recording venue.

The Decca cartridges have this sense of presence in spades, as well as superb attack so one can hear the start of notes clearly, but I would not describle them necessarily as tonally accurate. They are also "fun" to listen to, not that is sine qua non, but they can, if set up with care, be extremely enjoyable to listen to.

[Barry]

I don't see them as in any way mutually exclusive personally... I design equipment to give both :)

A personal bugbear is systems which are rounded off at both ends, especially the top end, to give that "this system ain't going to sound anything other than smooth and lush no matter what's on the recording" effect..... not for me!

A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

Good post Jez.

regarding the curtailment of frequency extremes, a good rule that used to be followed by traditional speaker designers, is that the product of the upper and lower frequency -3dB points should be 400,000Hz2: that is ideally 20Hz - 20kHz, but if that cannot be achieved then 40Hz - 10kHz is better than, say, a speaker that has a frequency response of 40Hz - 20kHz or 20Hz - 10KHz.

Your last sentence is spot on. I would much rather have a system that exposes recordings 'warts and all', than something that airbrushes out the faults, and is a 'nice comfortable listen'.

[YNWaN]

And is that what you get off on, when sat at a concert listening to live music? ;)

I'm being facetious, of course, and I value those things too and consider them important, in terms of achieving realism, but the accurate portrayal of tone (and timbre) is *vital* if ultimately a guitar is to sound like a REAL guitar, and a piano like a piano, etc, as opposed to a cardboard cutout of such - and there is no getting away from that fact either.

Marco.

Err yes, that is precisely what I enjoy when listening live. Musics tonality is an ever changing scale modulated by the acoustic the instruments are being played in. Even worse, once an instrument is amplified all bets are off as you then introduce the character of the speakers, amplification and room acoustic - and that's assuming no further effects are applied. In short, there is no tonal accuracy/neutrality to pursue.

[Marco]

Indeed, but in this instance I'm referring to concerts involving acoustic instruments, nothing that's amplified through a PA system.

Anyway, I get where you're coming from and agree to an extent, as what you're talking about is fundamental to music sounding real, but the fact is, all the wonderful "subtle interplay, counterpoint and dynamic contrast" in the world, would mean nothing if, tonally, your system made a bass guitar sound more like an acoustic guitar, or a kick drum more like a snare drum... ;)

Accurate reproduction of tone, therefore, is vital.

Marco.

[Dynamics]

My attitude and preference is definetely detail, if the speakers have a decent rich bass balance which a lot do anyway. That's probably why I like cyrus. Using the right cables can take off the harshness or any sharp lispiness or edginess out of the treble.

But as regard tone I always think that's something extraneous to what's needed beyond a certain point. So talking about how far you have the bass knob (if you have one) I'm probably a zero bass person or minus one or two, but my treble knob if I had one, would be at plus one or two.

Too much richness in bass tone mask the ability, for me, to hear detail as it will mask it out, also how dynamic the music can sound on and off. Since if you have rich tone always on and a subtle dynamic sound, you are less likely to hear it. So what makes music real for me is the detail and dynamics of the sound. Dynamics obviously being how on and off and quickly the music gets to a drum beat and back down again. And detail to hear all the layers well and also it brings on naturalness the more real it is. But my impression rightly or wrongly is that the tone of say a violin, doesn't have the knob at plus 4 or 5 which I know is sometimes people's preference. I'm not critisising anyone, but this detail and dynamics ideal is just my preference.

[ff1d1l]

I'm an imaging and dynamics guy....tonal accuracy will come out right, generally speaking, if imaging is good - too skewed a FR and the imaging is in your face or non existent. And get these right and detail is usually sufficient unto the day.

[magiccarpetride]

My attitude and preference is definetely detail, if the speakers have a decent rich bass balance which a lot do anyway. That's probably why I like cyrus. Using the right cables can take off the harshness or any sharp lispiness or edginess out of the treble.

But as regard tone I always think that's something extraneous to what's needed beyond a certain point. So talking about how far you have the bass knob (if you have one) I'm probably a zero bass person or minus one or two, but my treble knob if I had one, would be at plus one or two.

Too much richness in bass tone mask the ability, for me, to hear detail as it will mask it out, also how dynamic the music can sound on and off. Since if you have rich tone always on and a subtle dynamic sound, you are less likely to hear it. So what makes music real for me is the detail and dynamics of the sound. Dynamics obviously being how on and off and quickly the music gets to a drum beat and back down again. And detail to hear all the layers well and also it brings on naturalness the more real it is. But my impression rightly or wrongly is that the tone of say a violin, doesn't have the knob at plus 4 or 5 which I know is sometimes people's preference. I'm not critisising anyone, but this detail and dynamics ideal is just my preference.

In real life performances when a band/orchestra is playing, one can often experience moments when certain instruments overwhelm other instruments. A dramatic crescendo can momentarily flood the overall sound, and then it is more of a gestalt experience than being able to discern and follow each individual instrument. The group sound of all instruments is greater than the mere sum of the participating parts.

If a good sound system is put in place in order to give us the illusion of listening to real music performance, the above experiences must be approximated. Meaning, there comes a point when imaging and resolution and details take a second fiddle to the overall tone of the performance.

[Dynamics]

In real life performances when a band/orchestra is playing, one can often experience moments when certain instruments overwhelm other instruments. A dramatic crescendo can momentarily flood the overall sound, and then it is more of a gestalt experience than being able to discern and follow each individual instrument. The group sound of all instruments is greater than the mere sum of the participating parts.

If a good sound system is put in place in order to give us the illusion of listening to real music performance, the above experiences must be approximated. Meaning, there comes a point when imaging and resolution and details take a second fiddle to the overall tone of the performance.

I took your the question of tone to mean the bass/treble tone or balance. if the sound is going to be loud in all areas or if one instrument dominates in a orchestra for a moment, that will happen regardless of whether the speaker is detailed versus offering better treble/bass tone. Its in the recording. So I think the point about detail is it makes the performance more natural because you are more likely to discern the layers when they are there in say a piece of music that doesn't have one sound dominating momentarily. E.g. an acoustic piece with guitars and other instruments and vocals. I don't think you can ever take detail to a level where it's too much, therefore, so long as it's bass and treble balanced, not either too much bass or too much treble. I don't know how detail would take a second fiddle to the bass and treble tone as it's quite different I'd say.
Imaging to me means how the speakers image the stereo performance, so it's never out of kilter with detail or bass and treble.

[magiccarpetride]

I took your the question of tone to mean the bass/treble tone or balance. if the sound is going to be loud in all areas or if one instrument dominates in a orchestra for a moment, that will happen regardless of whether the speaker is detailed versus offering better treble/bass tone. Its in the recording. So I think the point about detail is it makes the performance more natural because you are more likely to discern the layers when they are there in say a piece of music that doesn't have one sound dominating momentarily. E.g. an acoustic piece with guitars and other instruments and vocals. I don't think you can ever take detail to a level where it's too much, therefore, so long as it's bass and treble balanced, not either too much bass or too much treble. I don't know how detail would take a second fiddle to the bass and treble tone as it's quite different I'd say.
Imaging to me means how the speakers image the stereo performance, so it's never out of kilter with detail or bass and treble.

My definition of tone is similar to the 'tone' in visual art. The overall quality of the perceived sound. It could be dry, wet, greasy, oily, metallic, glassy, chalky, etc., etc.

[Dynamics]

But out of interest how come in your original question you were pitting tone as you put it being the overall quality of the sound, against detail. Detail is part of the overall quality of the sound and therefore tone.

[brucew268]

A few years ago I tweaked my setup to present details better and I could notice certain inflections of voice or leading edge & harmonics on piano that many systems just can't reproduce. I loved it for a while, but eventually noticed that the result had given me leanness in mids (vocals and the body of violins, guitar, piano, etc.) and a frequency balance that de-emphasizes bass rhythm & tone. I more and more came to miss those things, but was not willing to give up speed, nuance, detail, and depth of soundstage. Without both, music just does not stay interesting unless listening to lo-fi. I now focus my efforts on both details & tone.

[alphaGT]

I hear people call certain stereo pieces colored. Tubes are colored. Horns are colored. Box speakers are colored. Etc. honestly, if it sounds good to me, I not overly concerned.

But detail, to me detail needs to be evenly distributed. Overly bright, or sounding brighter than live music, is not greater detail to me, it may make detail easier to hear, but it isn't adding detail. When a man blows into his trumpet and you can hear his spit moving through the pipes! That's detail! When you hear every note the bass player is playing, and can easily discern the kick drum in a crowded mix, that is detail. On a crowded passage and you hear a violin swelling up in the background, that is detail. No need for it to be bright or brittle or boomy. If one instrument is obscuring others, that is not detail. A high midrange that makes vocals and horns sound great, but bass and drums suffer behind it, that is not detail, that is an uneven frequency response. If cymbals and flutes are air apparent but are preventing you from hearing that violin swelling in the background, that is uneven frequency response. True detail is all the way across, you are not being beat over the head with it. You can listen in, and hear deeper if you want, but you don't have to. That's the kind of detail I want.

The infamous visit to the salon when I heard the Martin Logans, I was comparing two CD players. And I played some Jethro Tull, Crest of a Naive, I think? And on the cheaper deck it sounded amazing, but on the more expensive deck, at a certain point I heard a violin swelling up in the background, I listened to this disc 10 times before leaving the house! And had just heard it on the same system in the cheaper deck , now I'm hearing this violin for the very first time. That is detail.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[struth]

Damn. I missed the damn fiddle lol

[alphaGT]

Damn. I missed the damn fiddle lol

It wound up costing me an extra grand! Danged fiddle!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk