Printable View
Noise always exists, no component available will not generate noise. I suspect a forward biased LED will be no noiser, and given the correct choice less noisy that the two diodes in series that Glenn seems to like using in his preamp cathodes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I know that displays are particularly noisy which is why a lot of CD players and AV amps have a 'display off' facility, but I'm sure I'd be hard pressed to hear a connected LED effecting the sound. Given the level of mains borne interference, is one tiny little LED really going to upset the whole thing?
Oh, white pinpoint high intensity LEDs - they're the new blue LEDs. :)
Nick, I take your point. Glenn recommended it so I went with the programme. He's certainly not the type to do these things if they don't offer some benefit :)
Also, many CDPs offer a display on and off facility. I can usually hear a slight degradation in sound quality when the display LED is left on...
Anyway, LED or no LED the preamp sounds stunning. I will be doing a full write-up shortly :smoking:
Marco.
Ah, yes, the backlight of a LCD is a different matter, they are often powered by a switching DC to DC converter so much more likely to do damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I know Ian certainly seems happy with his modified pre.
Glenn recommended it so I went with the programme.
Thats funny he told me it sounds better WITH the blue ledsh:)
Aye, that's only 'cos you complimented him on his 'pish catchers' and asked where you could get a pair :lol:
Marco.
Dunno about that mate but it seems the whole Italian team played in their PISH CATCHERS last night:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Too right, mate. The Dutch could have played in clogs and still won!
That was a very impressive display of football.
Marco.
I grew up listening to live music so I want the same kind of impact when listening to it at home. Its kind of impossible task but I am a lot closer I also want to listen to the music and not the sound of my system I guess for me as long as I am enjoying the music thats the main point I try not to think in terms of bass resolution etc they all matter but basically I want kick drums to kick harmonics to cut through tablas and cymbals to sound real and natural and music that can make the hair stand on my back
That's exactly it, John. I would also add that I don't want to hear the sound of my room. I want the recording's acoustic to take me to the venue, not a facsimile that doesn't sound like the original. That has been my goal for many years and I believe I am closer to it now than I have ever been.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Personally,i fall into cat.1 and 4. A combination of all categories would be great only is the software was good and let me elaborate on this.Yesterday and the day before,i decided to re-arrange my system to see which component to use and which to get rid.
What i found is,when i listen to a good recording(any kind of music.Classical,rock etc),with my system at least,i feel as if i am in heaven.When the recording is bad,i feels like sh.... lol I am not a die hard vinyl-o-phile but at least,when an lp is badly recorded is listenable but with a cd.....well,that is a different story.
Hi Yiangos, (do you have a first name btw?)
Your post has made me look back on this thread started a year ago and I've realised just how much my own system has changed over that time. I've changed every component in it and gone all-valves on my amplification. What I've got now is a system that seems to deliver on all four fronts at the same time as not being so brutally revealing as to trash less-than-perfect recordings.
It's amazing what a good linear power supply can do for a CD player too. Thse kind of upgrades give you more detail and better dynamics at the same time as making poorer recordings more listenable not less. How can this be so?
I've come to realise that a good musical system simply does not trash bad recordings for it doesn't exaggerate sibilance or top-end harshness. One combination of kit I tried at home just over a year ago included two big-hitting (expensive) transistor pre/power amps from two different manufacturers. A decent recording was breathtaking but poorer recordings were unlistenable. The reason for this is the fact that this was one grainy mutha of a combination. I guess at this point the valve seed began to germinate in my head. Why go for "valve-like" solid state when reallly, only valves will do?
Hi Steve
Yiangos is my first name btw and before i forget,i want you and everyone else to excuse my English unless you want me to post Greek ! lol yeah,i thought so rotfl. Steve,i know what you mean but here in Cyprus,only the last 10 years you could find a serious hi-fi shop and believe me when i say the owner and stuff don't know anything about hi-fi !
I bought my first hi-fi (well,sort of hi-fi) at the age of 13.Akai receiver/cassette deck Akai loudspeakers and a Goldring/Lenco turntable/arm/cartridge combination.A GL something,don't remember.Ever since (i am 50 now)i am in my fifth system.I only upgrade when it is needed and usually the whole system.I bought my previous system in 1985 and kept it for almost 13 years.I had to purchase a new one only when i blew the drivers on one loudspeaker and couldn't find replacements (TDL RS). I concider myself a music lover with a taste for good equipment not a die hard audiophile who instead of listening to music,tries to find fault in his system and is on a constandly "upgrade mode" :)
I read a lot of hi-fi mags although i don't believe anything reviewers say.For my,hi-fi mags os like sci-fi.You read for entertainment and because is my hobby and i would like to make an adition here.Although i am into what you'd call "high end" regarding audio and i am a subscriber to "The Absolute sound","Stereophile","hi-fi news","hi-fi plus" and 4-5 others magazines,the only one i really enjoy reading is "Hi-Fi World" and if i ever decide to quit reading hi-fi mags but keep only one,that would be.
Regarding valves now.Remember,i am from Cyprus.If i ever want to get involved into valves,i would have to travel to UK,spend a considerable time visiting shops,listening to equipment etc and if something goes wrong (not rare with valve equipment)i would have to ship them back to UK for repair. Mind you,i am not against valves.I haven;t had the chance to valve equipment but i think you guys are crazy.You must know something we, solid-staters,don't,the same way,we,vinyl addicts,know a few things cd users don't !
Sorry about that Yiangos. :o I didn't pick up on the fact that English was your second language (it's that good) and therefore didn't pick up on the origin of your name.
As for valve amp reliability they are pretty good when screwed together correctly. The valves themselves just turn up in the post, hopefully unbroken, in little brown boxes as and when required.
As for Hi-fi World David Price posts here on the odd occasion and if you look at page 8 of the December 08 edition, we are in there!
No problem Steve.As for valve gear,one day Steve,one day....
A lot of interesting thoughts here.
The proposed categorisations, which I see as aspects of emphasis in system selection, can certainly be illustrated from my own experience.
Most notably, when upgrading my speakers nearly 2 years ago.
I was fortunate to be able to audition 1 of the potential contenders in my own system for some time with a view to purchase.
The other contender was an unheard, import only proposition, roughly price equivalent.
Not perhaps a complete unknown as I owned a lower model in the range at the time and a higher model using the same driver was exceptionally well reviewed by a tntaudio writer with whom I share an affinity of tastes in reproduction.
The speakers in question had received very good press and for more than a week I was very taken with them, they mated well with my amplifier, made everything sound great, tremendous sense of scale, not quite as dominating of my living space as the ones I eventually bought.
They definitely covered the first two aspects and were not remiss in the fourth.
Until I stopped being in the first flush of love and heard what they were missing, then followed a week of tinkering to see if the problem was elsewhere, I set up a switchbox to switch between them and my then current speakers to check what I was hearing and finally decided that what I was noticing was the compromises that had been made in the design to achieve their design goals.
I still find it a mystery why a speaker with a nominal sensitivity very similar to what I am using now should not reproduce the micro detail I hear now.
Be that as it may, I reluctantly returned them to the dealer with recompense for his trouble in delivering and picking them up again, feeling that it was only proper to do so and also that it was a cheap letoff.
Those speakers have now gone to a home where they are loved, but they were not for me, much as the effortless sense of scale was intoxicating.
I then went through the import thing and after nearly 2 years am constantly delighted with what I hear, yes they are ruthlessly revealing, yes they do not do the bottom octave and I may add bass augmentation at some time but at present, for most of what I listen to and the comfort of my neighbours, they are more than adequate.
Quality of bass, for me, exceeds quantity for most music. They have also proved an excellent system tuning tool.
Enough illustrative digression.
I would propose, and it is covered in various ways earlier in this thread, rather two categories, the first resolution and the second re-presentation.
The first being the ability of the system to retrieve the recorded information and the second its ability to faithfully re present (as in present again) that information.
I expect this is similar to what Marco is referring to as accuracy and feel it most closely resembles category the third, though it embraces the other 3.
I do not set out to find problems with the re-presentation of my system, but should some particular distortion intrude upon the music, then I will embark on tinkering and tweaking to ascertain its source and if possible resolution.
Whilst improved fidelity has often revealed recordings to be less than might be desired, the balance of improved sounding recordings is very favourable and the improvement made by some changes been much greater than expected.
An example here would be the improvement to the performance of the DL-103 after changing from a cheap SUT to an active headamp, another, a particular distortion in vocals on a couple of recordings eliminated after using Mr Yips protractor and painstakingly realigning my cartridge.
The results of the above 2 examples, improved information retrieval for the latter and harm minimisation in the former, resulting in more accurate re presentation, instead of a screech of massed violins there are individual violins, instead of one singer there is a backing singer and some studio reverb.
If the information is retrieved with accuracy in the time domain and re presented with phase coherence then I think tunefulness and all else will/can be re presented given a minimum damage amplification chain and suitable output transducers.
I think that is enough of an essay.
I think with this we essentially end up with a Flat/Round Earth dichotomy. This is no bad thing but for the fact that many associate Flat Earth with certain brands of hi-fi rather than with a state of listening.Quote:
I would propose, and it is covered in various ways earlier in this thread, rather two categories, the first resolution and the second re-presentation.
Flat Earth is about coherent retrieval of detail - communication. Round Earth is about presentation - speaker/room interraction, bass slam, scale, shimmering highs, air and space, big soundstaging etc.
A decent system does the lot but "shimmering highs," for example, need to reproduce the rhythm of the high hat rather than just a softened tizz with the sibilance stripped out.
Where there are obvious compromises to be made, communication comes before presentation for me.
Thanks for your thoughts Steve.
As a latecomer to hifi discussion and not UK resident, I am only peripherally aware of all the to & fro associated with the nomenclature of "flat earth" and "round earth".
I had gathered that there was some association with adherents of certain manufacturers products.
In some respects it would seem that my preferences mirror your own, given that I am happy to do without bass response "flat to 20Hz" in favour of being able to "hear the walls" in the concert hall or studio.
To me though it is all yin and yang, the breathing in and breathing out of the universe, the one becoming the other, opposite but not opposed, holistic and complementary.
Addendum some time later,
it is certainly not my intention to aggravate old wounds and schisms or restart wars of which I have no knowledge. Please forgive me, if, in my ignorance of such historical matters, I may have seemed to be doing so. It is only my desire to deepen my own understanding of the issues involved and partake in some sort of discussion thereon, that prompts me to post. I have seen enough already of interminable and pointless argument in other places where the primary issue is lost in the clamour to "prove" who is right and obversely who is therefore "wrong".
I find it all acrimonious and unwelcoming and I get the impression that those here feel similarly.
I fall firmly into believing that a well-rounded system is capable of both the communication (foot-tapping, rhythm, dynamics, slam etc.) and presentation (width, height, depth, focus, detail, transparency) capabilities. One or the other of the extremes (e.g. Naim electronics or SET valves) just don't do it for me. I also believe in wide bandwidth, which usually translates into large speakers. I can't be listening to full orchestral music on stand-mounters.
Just all my personal preferences.
I just like whatever does the job to the level I require. for the moment that is valves and full range drivers. This may change if I can better things within my budget.
Steve, could you be more specific?
What is your art of sound? You've stated the kind of equipment you want to use but not the kind of presentation of recorded music you seek from it.
Sorry Steve. I suppose what I strive for is basically to have a sound that recalls as much realism as is possible. I want to be able to sit down whenever I get the spare time and be transported elsewhere by the music. To that end I have certain requirements:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Toy
I like a big, expansive "sound stage" but most importantly, all of the instruments and / or vocalists must be palpable and well defined within this sound stage. All of the instruments must display as far as possible the traits they show in a live performance, with each in its own space and time line within the music, separate, yet working together to produce a sound that enables me to imagine they are in the room with me.
I suppose I do not go for "hifi" things, preferring instead to take the music as a whole, an experience to enjoy, and not an exercise in "critical listening"
Music is meant to be enjoyed. What good is listening to it if all you are going to do is dissect everything instead of relaxing and letting it take you over?
:smoking:I believe Martin T and Steve (aquapiranha)said it well but let me add something.From what i remember a few years ago and ever since i began reading magazines and listening to music,all reviewers used to say that there was absolutely no way to approach live sound in our rooms.Unless something redical happened during the last years,that comment still stands.Therefore,my view on the subject is hi-fi is full of compromises.
Unless one has the perfect room and the perfect system (money money money) there's absolutely no way to recreate live sound.What really matters is to setup a system that plays the way you like it.I am not sure i am making myself clear on this but what matters to me is when i sit to listen to music,i want my system to be balanced.If i notice that something attracts my attention (i.e. certain frequencies,especially in the upper mid and treble sticking out)then the whole concept is wrong.The system should be "invicible" and well balanced.What i am trying to say here is apart from personal prefferences,a system should be synergistic.
The bar to live sound from hi-fi isn't room acoustics - you could have a live band in your room and it would sound, er, live. The problem is dynamic range. No hi-fi can do it to reproduce any live instrument, especially not that of a drum kit.
Indeed Steve. That is why I say "strive" for that kind of sound. Lot's of fun in the chase though!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Toy
:lol:
Interesting that many of us who dabble in the DIY side, would relate the above to their own preferences. Even though we have the ability to create a clinically detailed and accurate system should we wish to. I wonder if this only applies to tube heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by aquapiranha
Solid state DIYers often seem to go for surgical precision. I suspect - having done both - that it's easier to arrive at this with SS devices.
Whilst it's true that systems can't reproduce the dynamics of some types of instruments, i've heard one or two lately that have a good go at it.:)
I wonder if the average recording even has any dynamics to start with.
Maybe in another thirty years....
:eyebrows: ;)Quote:
Whilst it's true that systems can't reproduce the dynamics of some types of instruments, i've heard one or two lately that have a good go at it.
Marco.
The old Cerwin Vega AT80 speakers were the first production speakers I knew of that could produce a dynamic range to scare the neighbours.
Stan
Most modern recording are so compressed that the full dynamic range of the music isn't present anyhow.If it ain't in the recording,you can't reproduce it!
Ali, this is unfortunately the case where recordings are designed to match the more dynamically compressed kit they are most likely to be played on.
Therefore, such a faculty for discernment using yor ears is vital to the success of building the kind of system that, with the right kind of music, will move you to tears, plant a big grin on your face, get your feet tapping and/or keep your attention for any length of time. If you do not place much importance on the process of actually listening for yourself and making your choices based on what you hear then perhaps there are other sites that will meet your needs better than this one.
Steve, on that there can be no disagreement.
Personally, I can do without neutrality; I don't know what it is since it seems it's different with each of us, at different times, even at different venues, and one would think something like “neutrality' would be incontrovertible. The kind that is being bandied around in audio journals and all manner of audiospeak seems to point to the kind of peppermint cool, driven from a wide but distant perspective and threadbare tonal dynamics. Think early Spectral electronics and their sponsored recordings.
I can also do without the lowest distortion figures, total harmonic or in any of its other disguises, and many solid state electronics from the early 70s' namely, DB and Electrocompaniet, to current kings of that heap, Halcros, come to mind. They feel like like we just came off some skin bleaching treatment and there's no hair to raise.
I certainly can do without a total lack of colouration, if it means icy, glazed, white versus visceral, pompous and burnished glow. The early Sugano's Koetsus from the 80s were coloured so beautifully than real, yet only they could erupt the surrealism in our precious vinyl and make us limp and weep.
So I go in search of not the highest and not the truest of fidelity but that which sets a flutter of excitement as I advance the volume from a whisper.
I need to feel jovial – the system has to have a rhythmic pulse and a desire to rip open from compression. I'll take brashness over coyness, speed over lethargy and light over darkness.
I need to emote – the system has to to be able to express, and to that it has to be supple and subtle, from the lowest to moderately high volume, and not strangely so, that appears to be the province of high efficiency transducers and simple (low power) electronics.
But most of all, I find especial delight with stereo systems built on small meaningful budgets, assembled and fitted with passion, not obsession. With lots of music to go around.
A superb post. I used to agree on the neutrality front but have recently found that neutrality in terms of frequency spectrum that is also correct in phase makes for very believable and convincing reproduction of passionate music performances; I see no trade-off in expression.
I agree with measured distortion figures though for they only tell a small part of the story.
Hi Kee,
A superb summary of your 'art of sound'. You display an excellent ability to distinguish that which separates real music from a processed cardboard cut-out of such, and a genuine understanding of what it takes to produce a system that evokes emotion and stirs one's passions. This recipe defines the true 'art of sound'.
Well done!
Marco.
Greetings one and all,
I guess my 'philosophy' around "The Art of Sound" is based on the assumption that the only "Art" aspect lies in the music itself and how it appeals to my (baser?) instincts.
All else is simply a means to an end - be it the physical media or be it the reproduction chain.
From an 'enjoyability' perspective, one needs to take into account other personal factors such as mood, level of exhaustion, etc. This can tend to influence the choice of media at any given tiime.
Also from an 'enjoyability' perspective is the final sound produced - does it satisfy all of one's requirements for enjoyment. And it is this aspect that - for me anyway - that governs any changes to the reproduction chain.
Right now, I am happy with the sound of a system that has been described as "something old, something new, nothing borrowed and something blue".
So, in the words of someone from the transatlantic colonies: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Finally, the reproduction chain and its composition and placement within a listening environment provide the only area other than music for any aspect of "Art" (and this is more of an arcane art than any really artistic sense).
Achieving some sort of synergy in a system is not a scientific process - its an empirical one with a high degree of 'hit & miss' - as is placement.
:cool:
Dave
Indeed. Hence the art of sound. It is indeed an empirical process as the final sonic characteristics of the system cannot be predicted by looking only at what can be measured.Quote:
Achieving some sort of synergy in a system is not a scientific process - its an empirical one with a high degree of 'hit & miss' - as is placement.

The music itself is the art as is the reproduction of it in recorded form.
But not always, if your amplifier is incapable of driving your speakers you have a scientific explanation on why it doesn't sound right. Amplifiers with poor current drive and early SOA protection will struggle to drive some of the new complex, reactive and low load loudspeakers.
Dave
Hi Dave,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Cawley
Specifications will tell if the components are 'compatible' (i.e. whether or not they will work together), so I don't have an issue with what you've written in that context.
Where we differ lies in the achievement of some form of synergy (where the 'whole' is unexplainably better than the sum of the component parts).
It is this aspect - where everything just 'clicks' - that cannot be predicted or explained by any scientific approach and is achieved via serendipity...
What a scientific approach CAN provide is early identification of combinations that have little or no chance of achieving synergy due to electronic incompatibilities.
Isn't nature wonderful?
:cool:
Dave
the answer to that one [IMHO] is to look at the available specifications of said speakers and amplifiers and this should give you a good indication of how well or not the two will perform as a unit, it wont tell the whole story but is a good starting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Cawley
A...
Exactly chaps! And that is why I said "not always" glad we agree on this one!
Dave
Oh great, found a post where I also can talk a load of meaningless bollocks
(What do you mean I always do that)
A few thoughts on the Art of Sound.
There are two sorts of HiFi, the type that when you’ve finished admiring all the shiny boxes and saying “wow I bet that cost an arm and a leg” you leave saying “Yep, nice kit mate”.
Then there is the sort that makes you want to cry or dance. I like this sort best.
Two sorts of HiFi enthusiast; those who buy music to listen to the HiFi and those that buy HiFi to listen to the music.
Time for some of you to stock up on bricks me thinks ;)
I have never heard a HiFi system I can bear to listen to the majority of classical I like on. I don’t care if you’ve got enough valves to heat a housing estate and a turntable made from titanium floating in nitrogen. Not surprisingly, I don’t have a lot of classical music files preferring to go and listen to it live.
By the time the recording studio has wiped out the high frequencies with recording mics that don’t go much past 16KHz, the recording engineer has wiped out everything below 20KHz, the recording equipment has sampled the wave given by some pure chance it wasn’t a digital recording in the first place, etc, etc, it makes all this Art of Sound getting close to the live performance a bit of a nonsense really. You can’t reproduce anything like the sound/experience of a live “classical/acoustic” performance using today’s, or even yesterday’s electronic music reproduction equipment. No ifs, no buts.
HiFi is only really suitable for electronic music.
(Stands back up shaking the brick dust off, stumbles on a couple of breeze blocks that didn’t quite make the distance and carries on)
Right, that’s that sorted then. Glad you all agree.
So what does the art of sound mean to me; emotional involvement.
Don’t listen to what my ex Italian girlfiend (nope, it’s spelt right) tells you about me being typically British and not knowing a bloody thing about emotion; I got emotion, lots.
When that latest CD arrives through the post and EAC has done its stuff I sit in my special chair with an expectant grin on my face and get ready to be entertained. If it’s good, I’ll shut my eyes and get lost in the performance. Sometimes a particular piece of music won’t grab me immediately and it goes to my “listen in another mood pile”. Other times I just slip away to somewhere where there are no bills to pay, problems to be sorted, no noisy traffic or annoying hum from the fridge freezer; just me involved in someone else’s performance.
I'm intrigued by this girlfiend being an ex Italian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
What nationality is she now ?:scratch:
British apparently :)
Something to do with marrying an Englishman and changing passports ;)
You get one point for the droll humour and -5 for not considering nationality changes through marriage :ner:
Interesting...........just one question though.
What exactly did your 'girlfiend' do to become an ex-Italian?
.........was she jumped or did she push?
EDIT: doh.......just seen the last two posts!!
-10 points for you Wazoo.
You’re not even paying attention.
If you’ve all finished………..
Very disappointing all round I must say chaps. British forum as well. May as well be chatting to the Yanks. At least they can follow the plot even if they don’t get the humour
So, you prefer the bricks you referred to, to a little bit of friendly (if badly timed) humour then do you?
Fine.
No need to get all pissy just because you woke up with your foot in your mouth.
Hurl away, I bet you cant hit a barn door with a brick at ten paces anyway :rolleyes:
You don't renounce Italian citizenship when marrying a Brit, that situation changed just after my mother (Italian) married my father (British) around 60 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
I'm not getting 'pissy' and I don't chuck bricks - if you expect to have bricks chucked at you on a forum, you're on the wrong one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
Ooooooohhh!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder
Only -4 points - that means I win (QI rules) :lolsign:
Stratmangler
Rats, nobody told me we were playing under QI rules. Guess I’m a few points adrift now :(
:lol:
Wazoo
Oh, no brick hurling here? :eek: Might as well put this pile back outside then.
Relax, it’s just a bit of fun :lolsign:
I believe the correct description is naturalization or something similar. In fact the girlfiend was one of the Queens subjects (can’t say British citizen because I don’t believe we have such a status here) when I met her.