theaudioamp,
Why is a pure sine wave not an advantageous waveform? Fourier analysis shows that any complex waveform is a mathematical combination of various sine waves at different frequencies. You could reduce this complex waveform to a combination of other waves such as triangle waves, but then the triangle wave is also a combination of simpler sine waves. The same could be said about a "prettified" modified sine wave that PS Audio is producing as an option. That modified sine wave can still be reduced to a combination of pure sine waves. Ultimately the sine wave is the most natural, simple waveform. Mathematically, the 1st derivative of sine x is cosine x, which is actually sine x 90 degrees out of phase. The 2nd derivative of sine x, or the 1st derivative of cosine x is minus sine x. We never left the perfect home--the sine wave. So the sine wave is the most natural, universal component wave from which all waves are derived. As far as I know, the only other function whose derivative is the same as the function, is "e to the x power" but this is not an audio wave.
(Kren0006, did I remember my math correctly? It's been over 50 years!)
Using a decent recording such as the opening at 0:00 on the 1st video with S1000 and opening at 3:00 on the 2nd video with S2500, it is OBVIOUS that the S2500 has much more spatiality and fine resolution. I just used another computer which emphasizes high freq, which made this more obvious than on my other computer. I can just imagine the squiggles of ultrasonic HF junk in the inferior S1000 waveform, which are greatly diminished in the better reconstructed waveform of the S2500.
theaudioamp--Did you carefully listen to these videos, or are you merely giving us engineering theory? My guess is that your statement, "If those amps are as good as Jay claims, excuse my skepticism about any claim of reliably hearing that the Stromtank improves it," shows that you did not listen. Although to prove my point, Jay would present the system with and without the S2500. He may be tired of all the skeptics and may not want to bother to do this. He already showed that the S2500 is a big step up in sound purity from the S1000, which I imagine is also a big step up from no battery/inverter at all. So I would expect the jump from nothing to the S2500 to be humongous.
Jay, I agree wholeheartedly that the S2500 makes a much bigger improvement in clarity and naturalness than any combination of power cords. It probably often makes a greater improvement than getting a different power amp or preamp. Although better power/pre amps have lower distortion circuits, they still have to filter out the ultrasonic HF garbage superimposed on the pure AC sine wave they were designed to work with. Their high capacitance input takes the AC from the wall and creates DC which feeds the main circuits. Is this DC perfect, free of ultrasonic artifacts? I doubt it, and I believe a reconstructed AC from these battery/inverters does a better job.
Do you agree, theaudioamp? If not, why? Using your quote about the hundreds of meters' distance from the power generating station, there is lots of ultrasonic HF junk all systems must get rid of, and I think that a well executed battery/inverter is the best way to do it.
|
theaudioamp,
Look on page 402 of this thread. The 1st video on 7/30 at 12:50 PM is the S1000. Listen at 0:00. The 2nd video on the same page on 7/31 at 3:15 PM is the S2500. Listen to the same song at 3:00. I find it helpful to listen for short periods to the same material. The instrumental introduction goes on for 40 sec. Then the voice comes in. So go back and forth for the 40 sec instrumental, then with the voice for about 20 seconds back and forth. See if you can hear the ambient space on the instrumentals, how it is much larger on the S2500. Listen to the increased detail and resolution of the instruments on the S2500. Perception of increased space is a measure of low level detail.
If you honestly don’t hear ANY differences after several attempts, you cannot be blamed for having a hearing problem, so you should go to any audiologist or ENT specialist. Maybe it is as simple as getting ear wax cleaned out. If you do hear differences, but judge them to be very small, that is a value judgment which is fine, but at least you will have learned something and admitted to yourself that you are incorrect to claim that there are NO audible differences.
However, it is more likely that your technical emphasis serves as a bias that you emotionally block out any perceptions that refute your claims that there are no significant differences. I have observed this phenomenon of denial of truths if they conflict with entrenched belief systems and agendas, as with politicians who consistently lie. In medicine, I have met professors of medicine who make incorrect clinical assessments of patients based on objective data. For example, a patient may have abdominal and brain symptoms that are actually due to gluten sensitivities. The GI MD does endoscopic biopsies looking for gluten damage. The biopsies are normal, and the MD tells the patient it is OK to continue to eat gluten foods like bread, pasta. But I have helped many such patients by asking them to do a 1 month trial of avoidance of these foods. If I am wrong, the trial makes no difference and another diagnosis must be sought. There are comprehensive celiac antibody panels to do, but they may be normal and don’t tell the story as well as a clinical trial of gluten avoidance.
Another example is assessment of fatigue due to testosterone and other hormone deficiencies. It is easy to do blood tests for hormones, which don’t always correlate with symptoms. But hormone receptor sensitivity is not able to be objectively tested, so a clinical assessment is required. Analysis of symptoms PLUS objective lab measurements used together make a better assessment.
Clinical assessment, as applied to audio, means LISTENING. No better way. Listening integrates the subjective skills with objective measurements to obtain the truth of how an electronic component behaves in an audio system in a particular room.
Without careful listening, any of your supposed expert technical pronouncements are in themselves WORD SALAD, or irrelevant to what most people are here for. We are mostly not interested in professional AES papers and studies. If some author attempts to integrate objective data with what he hears, that is of interest. Many technical people distrust listening assessments, so they exclusively use technical criteria. Their standing with colleagues is based on technical competence. But it is useful to ask an intelligent child to listen. He/she doesn’t have enough technical background, but they have the best hearing to make a proper assessment.
Jay is an excellent audio clinician. He is not a technical expert, but his extensive listening experience is why his thread is most sought for guidance.
|
theaudioamp,
What you don't know is that I am a top class amateur violinist well respected by some esteemed professionals. I had a good grounding in math and physics before I decided to become an integrative medical doctor. I have expertise in listening as well as some technical aspects. You have shown no ability to listen critically to sound as well as respond to my technical insights. The 2 videos are there at the timings I indicated. Even though the recordings are still processed, they are good enough to easily demonstrate the sonic differences. BTW, Paul McGowan included modified sine waves as alternative options for those people who wanted to color their sound. But why does the premier manufacturer, Stromtank generate pure sine waves?
Clear out the insults, and just answer my question about why you think pure sine waves are irrelevant. When my uneducated patients ask me basic questions, I know how to simplify the technical language and explain the concepts to them, something they are entitled to, out of respect.
|
Your last 2 posts are totally incorrect. Read all my posts re: my listening evaluations of the S1000 and S2500. I found mismatched volume levels at some times and not others. This confused my early assessments. I did experiment with various volume settings. After all was said and done, I heard the essential differences I described.
You did not do serious listening to each passage. You cannot hear what I and others described, including Jay. Even at slightly different volume levels, there are essential differences in the character of sound from the S1000 vs S2500 that you cannot hear. More excuses and word salad on your part.
The final indictment of you comes when you incorrectly said I am not an MD. A few friends from this thread who personally know me could confirm your error. You have limited reading comprehension and draw incorrect conclusions. That makes any intellectual statement from you suspect.
|
theaudioamp,
Whatever technical flaws there are in the 2 recordings, somehow several people here easily heard the differences. The California Dreaming recording I found problematic, and led me to prefer the inferior S1000 on that song. But the better recording I referred to was a no-brainer for the superiority of the S2500. You spend more time criticizing the technical flaws of the YT recordings than listening. You could correct the volume and channel imbalances yourself, maybe not perfectly, and still hear the differences. Everyone here who listened easily heard the same superiorities of the S2500, except you.
I have compared fine violins alongside international professionals at auctions. Even though there are differences in the setup (different angle of bridge, neck, soundpost adjustments, types of strings), there are the much vaster intrinsic differences in the tone and response of all these violins. Any good player can hear this, just as any good audiophile can judge the sound differences despite all the variables. But you are too busy making technical excuses to hear what everyone else heard here.
|
Jay,
The Boulder 2108 phono stage has a max loading for MC at 1000 ohms. This is pretty good, almost as detailed as 47K when I tried it with various phono preamps. The MM input is at 47K, but you would need a transformer to use the MM input. My old Mitchell Cotter transformer into a MM input wasn't as good as direct into the MC input, although people like Mike Fremer have tried MC cartridges with expensive transformers into MM inputs and have been pleased. Keep it simple for now and try all the loadings up to the max of 1000.
|
theaudioamp,
If you continue to claim that the poor quality of the YT videos makes it impossible to ascribe perceived sonic differences to each Stromtanks, Jay can set you straight. Would you accept his pronouncements based on his private home listening? Jay has invited anyone to come to his home and listen directly. Anyone spending almost $28K should do that--well worth the transportation costs to be present.
You say you heard differences between the 2 videos? What are they? Let's see whether you are competent to describe those differences. Is your listening vocabulary equal to your technical prowess?
|
Jay,
I am excited to hear your assessment of the Kronos + MySonicLab cartridge. MC detractors say that MC cartridges have rising HF peaks. This may be true above 10 kHz, but most of the music is below that, and any HF unpleasantness is usually due to anomalies in the 3-6 kHz region where the ear is most sensitive. So try the cartridge loading at the max in your Boulder 2108 phono stage (I believe). When I was young and had great hearing, I always found that 47 kohm loading produced the most brilliance, detail and clarity. Even midrange material was clarified due to more HF overtones. Ignore the technical talk that this is wrong, just listen for yourself and see what you like. I forgot whether your Boulder phono stage gives you the 47 kohm option, but just use the maximum loading that is offered. The MySonic output is lowish at 0.3 mv, an asset for greater detail and clarity. Your Boulder has 70 dB of gain, plenty. Perhaps its 60 dB setting will produce enough gain. See which gain setting is best.
Perhaps your digital will win if you load down the cartridge at lower settings, or your vinyl setup will win at higher settings. I don't know. I hope you have both vinyl and digital versions of the same recordings.
|
theaudioamp,
I asked whether you heard the MUSICAL differences that others heard, not the technical noise pumping. I don't believe you know how to describe musical sound quality--it is not in your vocabulary,
Again, your assessment of what is wrong is solely based on measurements. Jay will listen for himself and decide what is musically pleasurable for him, regardless of measurements.
Your good point is going to Jay's home and doing the listening. I'm confident he will welcome you on your terms.
|
theaudioamp,
No, you are mistaken. Jay described the differences he hears in his room, which correspond to the differences we heard on the YT videos. We came to the correct conclusions--you didn’t.
Yes, the recordings are of mediocre quality, made worse by YT. Still, it is possible to learn the essential character of any component even using mediocre recordings. When you visit Jay, bring your own excellent quality recordings, and even mediocre ones which have musical interest. In the real world, music loving audiophiles want to enjoy the music more, both from their excellent and mediocre quality recordings.
Floyd Toole is a technician and scientist. Nothing wrong with his scientific contributions. But you don't know what he thinks when he sits down at home to listen to music. He might have a mediocre audio system at home, we don't know.
|
Jay,
I have been pleased with my Shunyata Denali original version. An Isotek did nothing for me, nor did an isolation transformer. What specifically was the sonic deficiency of the PS Audio P20?
|
Ricevs,
If your friend's Giandel inverter plus AmpereTime storage batteries produce a near perfect sine wave, why would the Puritan filter produce a further improvement? The answer might be that no battery/inverter is perfect, and the filter is required for the finishing touches. Kinda like the barber who gives a good haircut with the razor, but uses the scissors later for the finish.
Jay,
If this is true, then you would benefit by using your Puritan downstream from the Stromtank, then feed your low power components from the Puritan output. I still believe that your power amp would benefit from the Stromtank purity, but if you find that the Puritan filter removes macrodynamics from power amps, you could just use the Stromtank on the power amp without the Puritan. If you think the S2500 can't handle the big Boulder amp, just enjoy the sound from smaller scale music where the S2500 should handle that. But the S5000 should be able to power everything.
|
The electrostatic principle is the purest transducer, but almost all stat speakers are badly implemented. Large convex curved diaphragms radiate to the listener varying degrees of HF rolloff. None of them are time aligned. A total hodgepodge. My Audiostatic 240 speakers are the least flawed, although not perfect. The 2 skinny flat panels per side can be rotated to directly radiate to the listener without HF rolloff. The medium height of 48" provides better focus than the large Soundlabs and Martin Logans. I use only one panel per side, for the best focus and clarity. It could be improved with vertical concave curvature for perfect time alignment. Wilson, Focal, Magico (M9 only) speakers’ drivers are concavely directed for perfect time alignment.
|
Right. Now you have a reason to try your Puritan and tell us what you hear.
|
I respect theaudioamp’s efforts to inform, but the fact is that there is no technical expert including the renowned Dr. Floyd Toole, who has written anything that correlates distortion measurements with purity/transparency/clarity of sound as judged by good listeners, musicians and non musicians. People respect Toole, but has anyone heard his audio system (if he even has one!) to see whether his vast knowledge has translated into the highest fidelity sound?
Thanks to ricevs for mentioning that all inverters generate distortions, which explains the varying "sound" of inverters. This explains the mystery of how the PS Audio P20 has very low distortion of 0.5% or lower on its regenerated AC wave, which is lower than the Stromtank’s published figures, and yet Jay found that the Strom is the best power product he has heard, and that even the Shunyata Denali was much better than the PS Audio P20. Paul MacGowan stated that his Power Plants are in effect amplifiers, so we are back to the fact known by everyone here that amplifier distortion measurements don’t predict an amp’s sound.
This begs the question of WHAT distortions are being measured? I don’t expect anyone in the entire world to come up with a technical answer that has any relation to sound quality. Are Stromtanks’ higher distortions in one parameter outweighed by lower distortions in other parameters which explain their superior sound quality? But I anticipate getting the most practical info from Jay, who will tell us his ranking order of sound quality from several alternatives.
1. Stromttank 2500 alone
2. Stromtank 2500 feeding the Puritan 156 filter
3. Puritan 156 alone
4. Shunyata Denali version 1
5. PS Audio P20
I would like Jay to tell us the specific sound qualities that characterize his best and worst choices.
Ricevs can do the same with his Goal Zero Yeti 400, with and without the Puritan.
The pompous scientific debates have been going on for 80 years at the professional audio and engineering societies. Every single scientist who spends more time at the test bench than careful listening is an ignorant fool, with incomplete knowledge, but we good listeners can share our experiences and help each other.
Right on, thezaks!
|
Jay,
Agree with everything you said today at 9:13 AM. Yes, you may hear some popping noises from older LP's. For classical, Mercury Living Presence made the most exciting recordings from the 50's and early 60's, but there is lots of hiss. But there is so much resolution and information and exciting transients that you can just ignore the obvious noise. That's an extreme example, and with modern LP's the noise is minimal, so on balance you will hear so much of the music.
|
cleeds,
It is obvious that the best road to purity includes all the steps on the way. First step--you have dedicated lines. So does Jay with his dedicated lines plus better outlets. Maybe you went all the way like ricevs’ friend with his own power transformer outside, close to the transfer station. Second step--you found that a great conditioner is still important. But ricevs’ friend found that a great conditioner like the Puritan plugged into his dedicated line was far inferior to the combination of the Ecoflow Pro battery/inverter and Puritan. So the third step is the battery/inverter. It seems like Jay has done it all and found that THE most important step is the battery/inverter. Theoretically, perhaps the perfect conditioner could make the other steps unnecessary. The reality is that all the steps contribute as a team.
If theaudioamp is correct that if the dedicated lines don’t terminate in the same box, there will be ground loop noise. So just get rid of the ground loop noise by regenerating the AC with a battery/inverter, and then use a Puritan or other conditioner to clean the noise from the inverter. All these sources of noise are a constantly changing environmental nuisance. The best dedicated lines and outlets won’t correct this completely. We need to be off the grid, and likely use a conditioner for the finishing touches.
|
Look at the Bluetti site grannyring linked. The basic 200P model 2000 watt hr is an all-in-one battery/inverter, $1599, 60 lb package. The next level up is the 300 model 3000 watt hr inverter only, $1899, 47 lbs. The required separate B300 battery is $2099, 80 lbs. The package is priced at $3699. This is the package to consider. Trouble is, the Bluetti site review are from campers, no reviews of sound quality. Same for Goal Zero. The only sound reviews we have are from Tom Lyle, and the experiences of ricevs and his friend, and Jay. We need more audiophile reviews of these cheap and lightweight products.
At this point, it is looking like the Stromtank 2500 is the way to go for audiophile quality of execution, parts, etc.
|
ricevs,
You are right--I don't know whether the parts and execution are better on the Stromtank 2500 than the Amperetime/Giandel system? For the money of the Strommy, the parts are likely and ought to be better, but how does the sound compare between the two systems? No one knows yet.
I started to post on the other thread you linked at the top of this page, and first linked by grannyring on the previous page of this thread. That thread is growing fast, so those interested can go there.
|
Jay,
If streaming is mediocre, wait before you hear your vinyl setup before spending another penny on digital. There is so much to try on your vinyl setup. Ignore the "proper" technically correct settings on your Boulder phono stage. Try different cartridge loading options for MC. Try the different EQ settings offered. RIAA may be proper, but try the other EQ settings--FFRR, EMI. The latter two were for older records. Try different tracking forces on the cartridge. I have used the lower range of the recommended tracking force to obtain highest clarity and HF extension. Of course, mistracking must be avoided, so use the lowest force possible. If you want a more bass heavy and warmer sound, higher tracking force will give that. Some people have said that the higher tracking force produces the least record wear, which is counter-intuitive. You can vary the vertical tracking angle (VTA) for different tonal balance. Raising the arm pivot increases the VTA, and will produce a brighter sound, although the bass will be thinner and coherence will suffer. Records are cut differently, so one record will sound better with a different VTA than another record. Forget the technical screams of you know who, and do it ALL by ear, according to your taste.
|
grannyring,
Right. No one knows it all. I happen to think Jay's Magico S7 speakers have much more articulation and detail than the M6 he had. The M9 probably has only more bass, and I probably would prefer the S7 to the M9. One of the few videos on the real flagship Magico, the horn, shows it to sound like a leaden elephant. So much for being impressed with expensive items. Some are great, like Boulder, but listening is required in all cases.
|
theaudioamp,
You again have poor reading comprehension. I said that the audiophile can do technically inappropriate things. It doesn't matter--he is after the sound that works for him. All kinds of EQ, tracking force, VTA settings, loading options are on the table. The important thing is that the audiophile should have a good ear to discern how far he can vary from what is technically correct to get a musical, revealing sound in the context of the rest of his system.
The odds are you have a mediocre system based solely on your fanaticism about correct measurements, and are a mediocre listener. If you were to vary the settings from what is technically correct, you would ignore if your ears determined that it sounds more true to life that way.
|
Jay,
There are too many variables here. To proper assess dsd as a format, you need the same recording in different formats. If you do this, people will agree about the objective characteristics of each format, at least with that particular recording. Preferences are another matter. I don't think YT has the needed resolution and quality to make a proper assessment, but in your room you can do this. Still, you can best do this as I described.
|
Be sure to play a recording you used in the previous video. This is the only disciplined way to tell the differences between speaker cables. As you say, speaker cables are the most critical of all cables, so even YT may allow us to discern the differences.
|
clearthink,
True. However, only Jay knows what he is hearing in his room. I suspect there are big differences between the two speaker cables which would be obvious with any recording. But when you get a new component, you first have to play the system again with the old component, just in case the power quality is different, your emotional state is different that new day. After you get your current reference point, you play the same recording with the new component. Don't jump to conclusions, because something different may not be better after repeated listening. Go back and forth with the same recording, to be sure you come to the correct conclusion. Then repeat this process with a different recording, back and forth. It will take a period of time before you are sure what the new component does, and then you know it, and can listen to any recording at random, and tell what the new component does.
There is NO WAY we YT listeners can come to reliable conclusions any other way. Jay keeps asking what we think, but deep down I hope he wants honesty rather than shilling from us.
|
Points 1-4 are all desirable, but point 5 is invalid. If the goal is natural life-like sound, 1-4 are descriptions of that. Natural sound also means the correct listening level. There is the true SPL of live music at a certain distance. If the system's SPL is too soft, the full information isn't revealed; if it is louder than live, it is distorted in that way. "Too much happening at once" means the added distortions from being too loud. At the correct, natural SPL, there is NOT too much happening, but it is the highest level of clarity with the full information.
|
carey1110,
You are right about all these recording engineer factors. I am mainly referring to natural, unamplified, unprocessed recordings such as classical and some jazz. But even in most of the processed recordings presented here, there are isolated relatively natural sections such as a guitar which can be referenced to the guitar heard live. Except for louder transients that last a few milliseconds, a natural guitar heard reasonably close has an average SPL of 60-80 dB. An audio system designed for high fidelity of tone and spatial qualities should also be played at natural volume levels. If the guitar is played at 90 dB, that is gross distortion. A system that costs almost $1 million should sound lifelike for that guitar at 60-80 dB. If the listener is compelled to boost the SPL by another 10-20 dB, then the system has poor lifelike quality with inferior resolution, OR he wants to abuse himself like drinking too much alcohol. Fine wine should be savored in sensible amounts, not hosed down the throat.
|
It's obvious that different types of music have different natural listening levels. The Fletcher Munson curve shows human sensitivity at various frequencies. At 3 kHz, the ear is maximally sensitive, so 80 dB is loud, but at 20 Hz it is very soft. It would take over 120 dB at 20 Hz to be considered loud. Music is an assortment of all frequencies, and it takes experience with natural music to discern what is really true to life in an audio system. Those people who have no goal of high fidelity and just want to blast a system will find this discussion irrelevant to them. However, I spend some time tweaking the volume to find the best SPL that produces the most natural, lifelike fidelity, with maximum clarity and focus. A little too loud, makes for a bloated fuzzy presentation that is not musically true to life. Spending big bucks on cables and such doesn't reveal the music as well as getting the SPL right, with natural levels.
|
Right. The best playback SPL enables full appreciation of detailed info with clarity. Goldilocks--not too soft, not too loud. The ideal natural tonal balance at the Goldilocks SPL will be altered if the SPL is too soft or too loud. Still, one characteristic of live, natural sound is that even soft and at a far distance, the live quality is instantly recognizable vs the relative garbage from all audio systems. Why? Live natural sound has clarity even when soft.
|
Jay,
Great discussion of listening at various SPL's. OSHA has info about hearing loss from several hours of exposure at various SPL's. Above 85 dB is risky. Sustained 90 dB is really dangerous. One nice aspect of classical music is that live levels are about 70 dB or less most of the time. Of course, there are swells to 100 dB, but these are infrequent.
In my early days, I was entranced by my Maggie Tympani 1D at 100-110 dB on big orchestra music. The dealer even said that I listen very loud. But I got tired of the bloated image and lack of focused clarity. These days, I enjoy my high resolution system at 30-70 dB with peaks at 80 dB for most music. It is nice to get satisfaction at lower SPL's, as I listen with my brain and not my stomach. I listen only for 30-45 min sessions not because of hearing fatigue, but because I like to take a break from intense mental concentration as with reading technical material.
This is akin to intense weight lifting. You want to lift maximum weight, but can only do it for about 30 seconds. Walking 4 miles for an hour is worthwhile for calorie burning, but you won't build muscle that way.
|
Funny cartoons.
Poo-poo on tubes, the last one.
But motorcycles are LOUD, so you'll go deaf and the lovely woman will have to shout for you to hear her.
Most tasteful is the soccer ball which shows finesse and sensitivity.
BMW is a quiet car with a smooth, nimble ride AND with power.
Don't idolize big tanks which are about destruction.
|
No, it looks most like a battleship. See what happens when there is a lack of clarity, and in black and white? I don't regularly look at yachts, but a yacht would have a curved front bow and have a generally graceful shape and outline. The crude low rez picture shows a more mean looking boat, so that's why I thought it was a tank or a battleship.
|
Agree about the cat. I think Jay's message with the other items is that certain types of women go for guys with money. But cats and dogs love you unconditionally, on a higher plane.
|
My findings are the same as those of skebet. The tonal balance of #2 shows more upper midrange and HF content. I understand the synergy advocates who might prefer #1. This is because the inherent tonal balance of the S7 speaker favors the brilliant tweeter. Actually, I believe the tweeter is accurate, but the rest of the drivers don't quite keep up with the tweeter's speed and resolution. Despite this, I like the S7 as the best speaker I have heard from Jay's videos. I enjoy the brilliant aspects of the S7 with the brilliant/revealing Boulder electronics, AND #2 power cord. But the synergy camp will prefer toning down the brilliance of the rest of the system with #1 power cord.
My guess is #2 is Transparent, #1 is Shunyata. Except for my Shunyata Denali which is brilliant and detailed, I didn't like the flagship Shunyata Sigma power cord and preferred the more brilliant Shunyata Venom HC which is just high quality 9 gauge. Whatever filter networks are in the Sigma, they produce a more laid back softer sound.
|
clearthink,
You make valid points about technical problems in these videos. However, the differences I heard were consistent among the several songs, and quite easy to hear, even with all the flaws you mention. But the flaws are consistent, and a relative constant, so they cancel out, making it very possible to form reliable conclusions. I used two lousy computers but came to the same conclusion that I preferred presentation 2, and I am quite confident that it is the Transparent. If Jay says it is not the Transparent, I made an arbitrary error, no big deal.
I have heard excellent violinists and mediocre violinists play the same crummy factory violin as well as a great sounding violin. No matter which violin, the big differences in the sound are 99% due to the violinist rather than the violin. The crummy violin is like YouTube, which still lets us hear the big differences between these power cords.
|
"Relatively" clean, stable AC power? Jay had many power conditioners, but the Stromtank produced another world of benefits. There are many cheap alternatives to the Stromtank, as noted on the other thread. Nobody knows yet which is best. To learn the truth, the only way is to try for example, a single Amperetime 200 amp-hr battery + charger, and Giandel 2200 or 5000 inverter, for a modest $1-2K.
|
Jay already has dedicated lines. Maybe he didn't go all out and get an electrician to tap into the local power station, but he found that the Stromtank battery/inverter has much greater benefits than any other ancillary component. Those on the other thread (accessible from near the top of page 406 of this thread) know this from their other battery/inverters.
The technical people think they can explain sound differences solely from technical analysis. But they have canyon sinkhole sized blind spots about which measurements and factors correlate with which sonic criteria. They should re-read my last post that whatever factor X distortion is in YouTube or one's electrical system, that factor X is the same for both power cord videos, so the perceived differences are quite obvious which everyone has noted.
|
Cleeds,
Actually you do have a valid THEORETICAL point that AC power can vary from minute to minute. For this reason, if I find that component X sounds better than Y, I must repeat the A/B several times to be sure. On my first A/B, it could be that the power quality was better for X, which gave it an advantage. That assumes that the power for Y a few minutes later suddenly got poorer. So I do another A/B 20 min later. If I still find that X is better than Y, it is more likely that the reason is that X is truly better than Y, rather than if the power quality rapidly kept changing and changing to favor X. You can do this a few more times, and if X is consistently better than Y, it is much more likely that X is truly better than Y rather than I was consistently fooled by changing power quality.
More importantly, you asked, "What is the benefit of something like a $16K Stromtank battery as compared to a clean, stable, filtered AC line? I suspect the difference in that case is much less than it is for Jay with his problematic AC power." First, it isn't clear that Jay really has problematic AC power. I think Jay already answered your question. He installed good outlets and dedicated lines, tried respected conditioners like Shunyata Denali, Audioquest 7000, but found that the Stromtanks blew these away, including the PS Audio Power Plant 20 flagship battery/inverter. Even if Jay has problematic AC power, I would think that the Stromtank would show greater benefit than it would show if someone in a rural, sparsely populated area tried all this. THAT would be interesting to find out, whether reconstruction of a perfect sine wave produces better sonic purity for that someone whose AC power is already low in distortion and noise.
My Shunyata Denali conditioner yields a big improvement in every sonic parameter, and that's without any work in my 1963 NYC apartment building. I will make a small $1-2K investment in the Amperetime battery and big Giandel inverter to see whether it is an improvement over my Denali. The next step will be adding the Denali downstream from the Giandel to get the filtering benefit that ricevs claims is the best way to go, at least with the Puritan 156. I will be honest and report here and on the other thread.
|
Ricevs,
True about the PS Audio Powerplant, thanks. However, once it generates the DC, it functions like an inverter. The real issue here is whether the unique types of distortions from an inverter are qualitatively greater than those from good conditioners. Stromtank distortions are rated below 2%, but PS Audio Powerplants reduce AC THD to about 0.1% distortion. Yet Jay found the Stromtanks sound much better than PSA. The unique distortions from the inverters are not characterized. One more nail in the coffin for the measurements-only school of fantasy doctrinaire claims. Listening is required to properly answer the question posed by cleeds, whether battery/inverters sound purer than conditioners and dedicated lines.
The Giandel 5000 puts out 5000 watt-hr continuous, 10,000 peak, when used with two Amperetime 200 amp-hr batteries for a total cost of $2800. The competition is the S-tank 5000 for about $50K or so, for handling a complete system with power amps as well as front end.
|
The most obvious example of EQ is the different tonal balance of a system in different rooms. A large speaker in a small room is bass heavy compared to in a larger room. Room treatments and DSP are worthwhile, but they are mostly used for bass, whereas a simple electronic EQ can be used to modify numerous frequencies from bass to HF, producing a much broader array of effects. Of course, it gets very complex, and you have to be judicious and carefully listen for yourself to get the best results, rather than blindly trusting objective algorithms which often produce unsatisfactory subjective results.
|
Bulldogger,
Exactly! Perhaps your Krell XD amp has a beautiful midrange, but you want to extend the HF to more accurately convey the complete natural tonal balance of an instrument. The 5th row in the concert hall has a beautiful midrange, but rolled off HF compared to the 1st row. You use the EQ to get the tonal balance you desire, judiciously without going over the top (pun intended). On duller recordings, I boost HF more than for more brilliant recordings. My Rane ME 60 original version has 30 bands with center freq of 1/3 octave from the adjacent band. It is on eBay for $200 or less.
More generally, most people don't realize that their systems are EQ'ed in various ways, especially the "purists" who say they don't want EQ. Even Jay just admitted that much of the differences in cables can be explained by their different freq emphases. Or it may be that different capacitor/inductor values in cables have an effect on the freq balance. Actually, the biggest EQ effect comes from the speaker designer. The upper end Wilson speakers have amplitude adjustments for each driver, functioning as a parametric EQ. I don't know whether Magico has such adjustments. I like the S7 MUCH MORE than the M3 and M6 that Jay demonstrated. Are the drivers and cabinet design better in the S series than the M series? No. But the crossover networks are different, and in the S7 it is apparent that the tweeter is more dominant than it is in the M3 and M6. So the S7 is in effect an EQ'ed version of M6, aiming for a brighter tonal balance. You can take a conventional electronic EQ, either digital or analog, and get the S7 to sound more like the M6, and vice versa. The differences between various EQ settings are MUCH larger than the differences between preamps, power amps. However, an EQ is not a complete panacea, and I could never EQ a grossly inferior power amp to make it sound preferable to my reference amp.
Whatever distortion is added by an additional electronic stage such as the EQ, is vastly outweighed by the opportunity to judiciously change the tonal balance to your liking.
|
zprr,
Don't you acknowledge the post by bulldogger on the benefits he has obtained from EQ? Understand that your system, no matter what it is, employs some form of EQ. Many people give up on their 400 lb speakers in favor of an updated version, and go through the hassle of returning their heavy speakers and getting the new version. They don't realize that a big part of the new version is merely a different EQ setting in the crossover network. It isn't necessarily better, and it merely represents the designer's choice of the moment. With EQ you make your own choices with much more flexibility, without braking your back and bank account. Be open minded to the possibilities.
|
Clearthink,
Agree with your last two posts. Innovation is dependent on being open minded and flexible, ready to experiment. Nobody is TOTALLY open minded and willing to try new things. I have my own limitations, and I can't try everything under the sun. EQ is perhaps the most important of the basics, so even if I agree that AC quality is a major issue, it is not as big a factor as doing EQ. Very rarely, my power quality is so bad that the music sounds like it has marshmallows in its mouth, and my EQ won't correct that problem, so I give up for that day, and wait until the next day. It's like a rainy day when you can't go swimming, so you just wait until the weather is decent. Most of the time, my AC power is OK, so EQ is essential for fully appreciating my system.
No audio system which is claimed to be neutral, actually is. How can mechanical drivers in a box have the same tonal balance as a natural instrument of brass, wood or strings or the human voice? IMPOSSIBLE. The best we can do is to use our ears to EQ the system to produce a semblance of reality, or whatever is pleasing. It is not perfect, but it is the best single intervention that produces close to the desired result.
About phono EQ--deluxe phono stages offer several EQ curves such as RIAA, AES/EBU, etc. The actual difference is these curves is small compared to what an EQ like my Rane can do. I have only the RIAA curve in my phono stage, but I still vary my EQ to suit the recordings I listen to.
|
Clearthink,
We agree that there are two separate issues--AC power quality, and EQ. Both are important, but you emphasize AC and I emphasize EQ. It is highly likely that Jay's AC quality is better than mine, due to his dedicated lines and better outlets AND Stromtank. It is also likely that my system would improve with a good battery/inverter, but even with my unknown AC quality from my excellent Shunyata Denali conditioner, the effects of EQ are life-changing. I cannot listen to any system, mine or others' without EQ. BTW, another common example of EQ is the loading of the MC cartridge. I have always preferred max loading at 47K ohms. Although some criticize the HF peaks of MC cartridges which are fully revealed at 47K, I hate the "correct" loading at a few hundred ohms which tames the HF peak but it also rolls off the upper midrange and HF, making for a relatively lifeless sound.
Most if not all recordings presented here are badly processed productions with lots of EQ and many unnatural sound effects. It makes no sense for listeners to this stuff to criticize EQ while preaching "purity" without EQ.
|
My guess is that Jay owns his home. He completely renovated his garage to make a great listening room, created dedicated AC power lines and outlets. I don't think a landlord would permit a renter to do all this.
Even if he has AC problems, that's the purpose of the Stromtank to clean it up. Still, an inverter generates its own particular distortions, which is why ricevs' friend Oeno (great link to his comments on WBF, accessible on p 4 of the battery thread, accessible from p 406 of this thread near the top) uses the Puritan 156 filter after his inverter to filter out the inverter distortions.
Jay, how about trying your Puritan after the Stromtank?
|
Cleeds,
Right. For the whole system including amps, the Stromtank 5000 is needed, at around $50K, my guess. Nobody knows whether the power amp will benefit as much as low level electronics.
In general, sources like DAC's, TT systems with phono preamps which are low power are the most critical component. This is because whatever low amplitude powerline distortions are present, they are a much larger fraction of low power electronics than high power electronics. If you try to thread a needle and you miss by a tiny 1 mm, you might as well be a mile off. Still, it would be interesting for someone who owns a battery/inverter to do this experiment first with low power components, then add in the high power components to see if my theory is correct.
Jay, you can add your power amp to the S 2500, listen at modest levels so the S 2500 can handle the whole system, and then report your findings.
|
Both the Harbeth and Magico videos show the importance of stiff drivers. With Harbeth, the enclosure is seen as a less important factor, whereas with Magico, similar high quality drivers are in the S and M series. The biggest differences with big price differences are seen in the enclosures. Let's see what else we learn from Jay's interview with Alon Wolf.
|
henry201,
The purest transducer is the massless plasma driver, but it is impractical to use below about 500 Hz. The next best is the electrostatic driver, nearly massless, and better controlled than any dynamic driver either in a box or open baffle. To get a reasonable SPL and bass extension, they need enough panel area. As I posted, all ESL's have flawed implementation of the electrostatic principle. My concept of the best implementation is a concave spherically curved panel or a concave version of Soundlab's small cells in a spherical concave configuration. The radius of curvature is the listening distance, which would be adjusted to suit the distance. The result would be equal arrival times and full HF response without smearing from all parts of the panel. Reasonable bass extension would be achieved with enough panel area. The listener must be in the tiny sweet spot for full appreciation.
rbach,
This respectful dialogue is beyond your comprehension, so ignore and bud out.
|
henry201,
Some advice to you. Knowledgeable people who are respected do not belittle others who have views contrary to their own. If they THINK the other people is wrong, they give an explanation as to why, rather than saying flatly, "WRONG" or "The amount of nonsense you are spewing is indeed beyond my comprehension" or "Not sure why you insist talking about stuff you have no knowledge of."
Really? What qualifies YOU as an arbiter of truth? The quotes above from you offer no hint as to your purported expertise, and are merely opinionated accusations. FACT--As an accomplished violinist and lifelong concertgoer, I have plenty of first hand audio and musical experience, and know the pros and cons of most driver transducers and have stated so, if you know how to read my nuances. What are your qualifications? I am here to learn things of practical value, and was hoping that your alleged brilliance has discovered a truly SOTA transducer that outperforms plasma and electrostatic drivers for clarity and accuracy. I don't expect that you have such knowledge or accomplishments. Incidentally, you don't know how to spell--"get your story strait." It's one thing to make an innocent spelling error. You surely know the junior high school level differences in meaning between "strait" and "straight", but how do you compose a sentence which demonstrates fuzzy thought processes?
Knowledgeable, respected people know how to explain things to anyone of any age and level of education, in terms they understand. My career as a doctor depends on it. If patients tell me something that at first I don't think is true, I politely say to them that I never heard of that, and I also say to them that they may have taught me something new, and I will keep an eye out for other cases like them.
|
henry201,
You are a good man. Music is actually my first language, which I understood well before my first English words. I'm still developing more appreciation of the logic of English words.
I recall you posted a year ago about time alignment, using John Atkinson's data and articles. At the time, I followed his and your points. What wasn't discussed was how the different drivers could never be TOTALLY time aligned. Different sized drivers with different materials have different energy storage at varying freq, so at best only some frequencies could have the same arrival times. Nevertheless, some Wilson speakers enable adjustment of positioning of several drivers to enable the same arrival times, creating more coherence of the various drivers. Not perfect time alignment, but a worthwhile improvement.
Years ago, I added the horn loaded Enigmacoustics Sopranino tweeter to my main Audiostatic panel. At first, I aligned the surface membranes of each speaker. A worthwhile increase in clarity due to more HF extension. But later I realized my mistake, and then aligned the throat of the Enigma with the membrane of my Audiostatic. I thus achieved much better clarity from this more accurate time alignment. If I had measuring equipment, I could probably do better, but I got these improvements by ear and ballpark visuals.
Back to dynamic speakers with midrange/tweeter/midrange (MTM) configuration. The two midrange drivers are identical, so if the throat or voice coils of each are the same distance to the listener, that would be excellent time alignment, and the clarity would be better than if all drivers are simply stacked vertically in the box, with different arrival times.
|
