Neutral electronics are a farce...

Al wrote,

"Hopefully Roger will provide further clarification, as a claim that "the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier" (that being Geoff’s restatement of Roger’s position), or to use some of Roger’s words earlier in the thread, "emulating the properties of air" and "addressing the delivery speed" are statements that have no meaning as far as I am concerned."

Al, go to this page on the N. American Products thread for Roger’s discourse on the subject of the speed of sound in air issue,

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/has-anyone-heard-the-new-north-american-products-preamp-and-a...

cheers

Roger wrote,

"geoffkait: And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity."

-- First, please note my statement you quoted doesn’t imply or claim that your amp doesn’t address the speed of sound issue or perhaps even solve the speed of sound problem. What I am saying is rather different. 

Roger wrote,

"Are you saying that your own system is not right 80% of the time but you still enjoy it - yes?"

-- No, I’m not saying that at all. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Strawman arguments are something I’m not find of. Lol What I’m actually saying is that no matter how well your amp addresses the speed of sound issue - assuming that a more "live" sound can be achieved, as you claim, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt - if the recording is statistically 80-90% R (as George claims) I.e., the sound waves are going in when they should be going out, then Mach 1 consistency in the amp can’t save you! Hel-loo!

There are a lot of things I don’t like about recordings, especially CDs. Frankly I think CDs straight out of the jewel box generally sound thin, compressed, two dimensional, metallic, rolled off, bass shy, like paper mâché, congealed, blaring, irritating, generic and bland. How much of that is caused by the R nature of the CD, who knows? And I’m even willing to admit that some of all that might possibly be caused by Mach numbers being out of whack.

Roger wrote,

"Food for thought...
If you can’t tell the difference when you switch the phase then it [the system] is not clean enough to expose it."

That’s what I just got through telling Atmasphere is the likely explanation why George Louis was unable to hear the difference between R and N in the Atmasphere room at the show. The show is perhaps the worst possible venue to try to demonstrate anything, including the very speakers and amps and cables that make up the exhibit; exhibitors shoot themselves in the foot by not bringing along electonics or speakers that are ALREADY broken in.

geoff kait
machina dynamica

geoffkait,

And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity.

Are you saying that your own system is not right 80% of the time but you still enjoy it - yes?

Food for thought...
If you can't tell the difference when you switch the phase then it [the system] is not clean enough to expose it.

Same question for Al: do you think the polarity issue is bunk or only George’s list.

As I alluded to in my post of 4:27 p.m., I believe that for the majority of recordings there is no polarity that is "correct," although one polarity may in some of those cases sound "better" to some listeners with some systems than the other polarity. I also believe that in the case of the relatively few recordings that have been mic’d and mastered with purist techniques (just two or three microphones and minimal post-processing), that there can be a polarity that is correct, and a polarity that is incorrect.

Can you point to any recordings on George’s list that are R that you think should be N Or vice versa?

Just one of the preamps I’ve had over the years included a polarity switch, and I did not do a great deal of experimenting with it.

Regards,
-- Al

Roger wrote,

"How does the inverted polarity dismiss my claim about a stable velocity?"

Actually, it doesn't dismiss your claim about a stable velocity.  Score one for Roger.

Cheers

geoffkait,
 

The connection of course is that Roger claims that the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier. With inverted polarity, with the trumpet being sucked instead of blown it’s almost like the Acoustic Waves of the musician’s breath and coming from the trumpet are traveling backwards. So forget about keeping the velocity of sound in air consistent (Roger’s term is Mach 1) between the recording venue and the listening room. Obviously there are other potential issues but if 80 or 90 percent of audiophile type recordings are in fact R then that would be big news. And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity.

How does the inverted polarity dismiss my claim about a stable velocity?
I know this is a hard concept because it is giving most audiophiles a tough time wrapping their heads around it.

I can assure you that even if you play the "venue" in the reverse absolute phase - you can still tell that the location of objects is secure. Obviously switching to the [plus] phase will make it sound much better as it could be perceived as live. As far as the sucking of air [into] the sax, at least with a stable velocity its "sucking point" in space would remain still. Not the case when velocity is left unchecked. In fact you will have a much harder time telling the correct phase with a system that allows velocity deviation.

There is no bad news here - just a bad understanding.

Roger

I should also point out that George’s criterion for determining which is better N or R for a given recording is that it’s one that sounds more like "live" music must be N. Roger’s criterion is the same, I.e., "live" music, for what his amp sounds like compared to amplifier X. In fact audiophiles generally speaking are fond of using the SAME CRITERION for what the home playback system should sound like or at least strive for - "live" music. Same question for Al: do you think the polarity issue is bunk or only George's list.  Can you point to any recordings on George's list that are R that you think should be N Or vice versa?

Thanks for the responses, Ralph & Geoff. I read through Mr. Louis’ introduction to the polarity list. He makes clear that all of the entries in the list have been determined by him, simply by listening and "discerning polarity by deciding which polarity sounds more like live music." The only recordings he appears to recognize as being comprised of a mix of sounds encompassing both polarities are Phil Spector’s wall of sound recordings. Given those facts, as well as the incident Ralph cited, I would have to agree with Ralph that the list should not be taken seriously.

Also, in the case of preamps which provide polarity switches, and accomplish polarity reversal in the analog domain, I wonder if in many cases those who report major sonic differences when changing the setting of that switch are actually hearing differences in the sonics of the preamp itself, resulting from the change in circuit configuration that occurs when the setting of the switch is changed. At least, that is, in the case of preamps having unbalanced internal signal paths, where accomplishing the polarity reversal might involve switching an active stage into or out of the signal path, or some other circuit change that might have audible consequences. (That concern would presumably not apply to balanced designs such as Ralph’s preamps, where the reversal can be accomplished simply by interchanging the inverted and non-inverted signals at some point in the balanced signal path).

Geoffkait 03-03-2016 4:47pm
The reason I brought this up on this particular thread is because you had just asked what the speed of sound had to do with the price of spinach. Which was actually the question I asked last week on another thread and which Roger answered. The connection of course is that Roger claims that the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier.

Hopefully Roger will provide further clarification, as a claim that "the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier" (that being Geoff’s restatement of Roger’s position), or to use some of Roger’s words earlier in the thread, "emulating the properties of air" and "addressing the delivery speed" are statements that have no meaning as far as I am concerned.

Regards,
-- Al

Atmosphere, in George’s defense many systems at shows are not broken in at all or/and are not set up properly, thus it can be rather difficult to tell the difference in sound. In other words, just because he was unable to tell the difference on that occasion doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t usually hear the difference between R and N. Can you hear the difference between R and N? I trust you’re not saying that the whole polarity issue is bunk. It wouldn't take that much trouble to double check some of the labels or titles that George Louis includes in the database. As I said of the few he lists as N Mapleshade recordings IMHO do sound like they are almost certainly N.

Atmasphere do you know if the MLP label recordings were "inverted"?

I've never heard anything about that.   My understanding is they have the "holographic imaging" the best ones do because they were miked very simply for that (2 or 3 mikes for natural stereo live recordings).

Did they know of and play phasing tricks in the production?

How about more modern champs like Mapleshade or Dorian?

I couldn't say. What I do know is that if you want to do a really good recording, you keep things as simple as possible.

Al, Here's the link to the polarity database that George Louis compiled.  Draw your own conclusions.

The conclusion is of course that this is bunk. George would have had absolutely no way to know one way or the other! One time he came into our room, proclaiming that our system was out of phase (it happened at the time that we were playing Canto General which I had recorded). So I flipped the phase inversion switch. At that point, upon not really hearing a difference, George said that you could not hear it on analog recordings. I had the CD on hand so we played that. Same results. So I'm just going on personal experience here- George had and has no way of knowing so you can ignore that database.

Al, Here’s the link to the polarity database that George Louis compiled. Draw your own conclusions. The reason I brought this up on this particular thread is because you had just asked what the speed of sound had to do with the price of spinach. Which was actually the question I asked last week on another thread and which Roger answered. The connection of course is that Roger claims that the speed of sound in air should be preserved by the amplifier. With inverted polarity, with the trumpet being sucked instead of blown it’s almost like the Acoustic Waves of the musician’s breath and coming from the trumpet are traveling backwards. So forget about keeping the velocity of sound in air consistent (Roger’s term is Mach 1) between the recording venue and the listening room. Obviously there are other potential issues but if 80 or 90 percent of audiophile type recordings are in fact R then that would be big news. And bad news for Rogers claim that his amp, the way it preserves the speed of sound, is the key to getting "live" sound, since statistically on 20% or so of recordings are in correct polarity.

The situation is further complicated because some recordings that are inverted R will play as N on some systems, since in those systems there is one component that inverts polarity.

http://ultrabitplatinum.com/the-polarity-list/

geoff kait
machina dynamica
no goats no glory

Houston we have a problem. Most recordings, including many of the ones audiophiles cherish, actually invert polarity.

Geoff, I have no knowledge of the polarity database you referred to just above, but I would wonder how the polarities it alleges for the various recordings were determined. Was it all based simply on what sounded "right" to the individuals who created the listings? Or did they go to the trouble of examining waveforms on an oscilloscope or a computer? And if the latter, were they thorough enough to examine the phasing of each of the different instruments and/or singers on the recording?

My understanding is that the majority of recordings are neither inverted nor non-inverted. Instead they are a conglomeration of different sounds that are likely to have been mixed together with each of them being phased essentially at random relative to the others.

Take a look at this photo of one of the "state of the art" mastering rooms at Abbey Road Studios, which one of our members called attention to in another recent thread. After what has been captured from a multitude of different mics has been put through all of that equipment and subjected to mixing, compression, limiting, equalization, and most likely numerous other effects, it’s hard to imagine how the end product can have any semblance of meaningful phasing, inverted or not.

It would be a different story, of course, with the relatively small number of recordings that have been engineered with just two or three mics, and with minimal post-processing.

Also, since you mentioned database statistics for the DG label I’ll add, as you probably realize, that over the years many and perhaps most of their recordings have been notorious for heavy-handed multi-mic’ing. With literally dozens of microphones having been used on many of their orchestral recordings, as I understand it. Requiring, btw, a mixing console even more elaborate than the one shown in the photo I linked to.

In any event, though, there are countless other ways in which the recording and mastering process can be less than ideal. Why focus on this one?

As for the other issue that has been under recent discussion in this thread, I too am confused about what the speed of sound in air has to do with amplifier circuitry.

Regards,
-- Al

Not being one to beat a dead horse, of course, but according to the database of recordings vs polarity which one assumes is not obviously the complete listing of everything ever recorded, let’s not be ridiculous, but what is interesting is that actually just scanning the list of recordings, marked N for normal (correct polarity) and R for REVERSED/INVERTED polarity, the number of recordings that INVERT polarity far outnumber the ones that don’t. By the way, the entire label Deutsches Gramophon are apparently R not just 50%. It appears the percentage of R recordings on the list which includes a lot of audiophile labels is probably higher than 80%. Also note that Mapleshade recordings are marked N. Which actually makes sense, you know, that correlates to how they sound. Now, you see why I started my last post with, Houston we have a problem.

Atmasphere do you know if the MLP label recordings were "inverted"?

I've never heard anything about that.   My understanding is they have the "holographic imaging"  the best ones  do because they were miked very simply for that (2 or 3 mikes for natural stereo live recordings).

Did they know of and play phasing tricks in the production?

How about more modern champs like Mapleshade or Dorian?

Its interesting that phase inversion tricks often result in most "holographic" recordings.

There have been various gadgets over the years that add this in some form. I had a Omnisonic Imaging device many years ago, also a pre-amp with Carver sonic holography, and a yamaha dsp with various effects.

Al these gadgets worked to various extents when used properly and things set up right.

But when the basics are working and set up right, no such trickery is needed, unless one seeks something more extreme than natural. Some people want that. Some don’t. I want natural not unnatural. The recordings are what they are (we have no control over how made) so ignorance can be bliss there.

I have a polarity switch on my DAC…it is generally (or always) ignored, and great sounding recordings are great sounding…period. I do bristle when gasbags tell me something sounds wrong when I think it sounds right, and there is nothing quite as pretentious as pretention…recording venture indeed. "Velocity of air" is a generally meaningless term as far as audio is concerned (sound waves pass THROUGH the air, makes waves in it, and thus exist) although there is seemingly no shortage of gas velocity generated by obfuscation and condescension. The sound of gas escaping the bag…blaaaat….

That's just a flip of a switch with our MP-1 or MP-3. Actually the number of inverted recordings is more like 50%.

Houston we have a problem. Most recordings, including many of the ones audiophiles cherish, actually invert polarity. Who cares if the velocity of air in the recording venture is maintained by the time the recording is played in the listening room. Who cares if the velocity of air is maintained if the trumpet sounds like the musician is sucking instead of blowing? Hel-ooooo! Even many or most of the recordings audiophiles REALLY cherish are out of polarity. You know the ones I’m talking about, Mercury Living Presence, Deutsche Gramophone, Proprius, Columbia Kind of Blue, Opus 3 Depth of Image, in that vein.

The Fasten Seat Belts sign just can on.

;-)

The speed of acoustic waves in air is the most important aspect of sound reproduction to get right.

Are you suggesting that a circuit can change the speed of sound through air? Or are you meaning something else?

Wolf, get some good omni/radial speakers and problem solved.

I've heard Decware radials work well with tube amps.

wolf_garcia

To get anything like the live mojo out of yer tweets and woofs is doable, but still…it's nothing like live..

.Why is that?

Roger wrote,

(Geoff) "Things are just not that simple. There are distortions associated with speakers, with room acoustics anomalies such as slap echo, standing waves, reflected waves, with the effects of seismic vibration, the effects of mechanical vibration of motors, transforrmers, etc., the effects of static electric fields on the CD or LP and cables, the effects of induced magnetic fields in the wires and cables, the very large induced magnetic fields in large honking transformers, distortions resulting from wire and cable and fuses being installed in the wrong direction, distortions due to local environmental influences (Morphic fields), improper speaker set up, not to mention weather effects, sun spots effects, time of day effects. In other words in order to achieve "live" the audiophile who is attempting to get into audio nirvana must pay attention to everything, not just the speed of acoustic waves in air."

(Roger) "All of this is true except if the last reference - "not just the speed of waves in air" is not dealt with your system will never produce live no matter how much control you have over the vibrations. The velocity has to be right or you are wasting your time."

Of course you would say that. That’s your bread and butter. That’s what they all say, the aftermarket fuse guys, the speaker manufacturers, the cable manufacturers. Audio nirvana can be yours if you just buy this product!

By the way, Nice of you to say everything on my list of distortion producers is all true. Actually I am a little surprised you agreed so quickly. You agreed to sun spots and Morphic fields? Lol

But I say, if you don’t take care of the rest of the producers of distortion, the ones I listed, it’s actually YOU who is wasting his time. You might be the missing link. But get in line. There are a lot of missing links in this hobby.

No man is an island. He's a peninsula.

Cheerios

geoff kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio conceits

wolf there are some among us apparently who can do all that with confidence.   The "X-Men" of audio per-se?    :^)

The live reference conundrum remains interesting to me. Orchestral (not miked) music live as a reference should make you think about what an instrument does…a violin is omni directional but mostly up, and unless the violinist is chained to one spot and can only move the bow and fingering bits…and NOT move around (there goes that pesky phase coherency issue) especially relative to the other people who may be playing something at the same time all over the stage, you get some crazy sonic character to ponder. The fact that great mikes can capture more or less what your ears might hear (if your seat is suspended 15 feet above the orchestra), is good news. To get anything like the live mojo out of yer tweets and woofs is doable, but still…it's nothing like live and maybe that's not so bad. Most people get that…is watching play on a high def TV like live actors in your house? Of course not (note that live actors are often difficult to get OUT of your house…trust me), but it can still be friggin' great…I have a Britten LP with old Ben conducting and man the passion and vibe get through big time, even though the velocity may be skewed (!). Don't forget, that $90 fuse takes a month to break in and you might have put it in backwards in the first place and you're going to have to remember what your rig sounded like a month ago…daunting...

atmasphere

What velocity?

The speed of acoustic waves in air is the most important aspect of sound reproduction to get right. It alone is responsible for the most destructive damage done to sound reproduction. There is no alternative way to create the illusion of live.

Assuming you have almost everything to do with vibrations under control - what is left represents at least 70% of your systems remaining distortion.

Knowing where to look is half the battle. You can talk about amplifiers all day long but if you expect to use it for audio you must address the delivery speed otherwise it falls short every time.

What velocity?

geoffkait,

Things are just not that simple. There are distortions associated with speakers, with room acoustics anomalies such as slap echo, standing waves, reflected waves, with the effects of seismic vibration, the effects of mechanical vibration of motors, transforrmers, etc., the effects of static electric fields on the CD or LP and cables, the effects of induced magnetic fields in the wires and cables, the very large induced magnetic fields in large honking transformers, distortions resulting from wire and cable and fuses being installed in the wrong direction, distortions due to local environmental influences (Morphic fields), improper speaker set up, not to mention weather effects, sun spots effects, time of day effects. In other words in order to achieve "live" the audiophile who is attempting to get into audio nirvana must pay attention to everything, not just the speed of acoustic waves in air. 

All of this is true except if the last reference - "not just the speed of waves in air" is not dealt with your system will never produce live no matter how much control you have over the vibrations. The velocity has to be right or you are wasting your time.

One can assume a very generic definition of neutral in regards to sound and say that if it generally sounds like the real thing its neutral whereas if not it has some unique aspect to the sound, FBOFW. Vanilla ice cream versus other flavors essentially. More people like vanilla but some like other flavors. Most people recognize vanilla.

Not much more to it practically than this I think. Neutral is generally the norm. Still some variation possible and still be judged "neutral". Anything else is more an acquired taste. Different strokes....

So its a very generic term that is useful but not sufficient alone for people like audiophiles that must obsess on details of everything.

nootral? i know how to hear natural: I can record my guitar, accordion or beat box and if it sounds same in the same room via speakers than it's natural or maybe nootral.

I'd say the neutral and balanced-labelled equipment has become a tool for sales guys to pitch us some low-end stuff. Maybe not.

I can honestly say I can't distinguish a neutral or balanced sounding mix unless i listen to what an unbalanced mix is. 

Well, I can say that my rule of thumb for getting the right kind of equipment would be to trust my ears and what details it would love to hear.

No doubt you can only reproduce what’s in the recording most all of which are flawed in some way, even the good live recordings which are the only ones relevant for comparing a live event to what you hear off a recording.

I find once your system is performing well, the recording is essentially always the biggest bottleneck by far in regards to sound quality or "like live".

You can’t reproduce what’s not there to start with.

In a lab experiment like Atmasphere’s with ultimate care in recording and playback, only then is one in a position to be talking about anything approaching zero distortion or perfection.

With the best live recordings I know of like teh best from Mercury Living Presence, Dorian or Mapleshade most good systems should sound like being there. Even my somewhat modest rigs do. I’m sure if I was at teh live performance recorded, with same perspective as the mikes, which alone is not likely, I might notice some differences. But why should that matter? They are ALL recordings.  Flawed and/or limited representations of real life.   Some might be like a high res photo and some like abstract Picassos,  some even just a total disaster like DT might say.  What matters is the illusion of a live recording. That happens with most any decent recording in a good setup, even if produced in a studio.

The analogy does not hold up.

Do you have a method of measuring the effect you describe?

I guess you can compare the difference between a photo taken with a 3 MP camera, a 5 MP camera etc.

What if you take a picture now with a 100 mega pixel camera?
They are all stable and focused but now you can see detail that only could have be seen in person.

My auto-focus uses quantum physics and is accurate to parts per trillion.
Semiconductor manufacturers do not make a device that can do this.
That's why I had to make my own devices.

Roger

I think it is a matter of how stable and how focused compared to live.

I recommend that you get a set of really good microphones (I use Neumann U-67s) and go out and make your own recordings. That's what I do (Canto General, which was produced on LP and CD, is one of my first reference disks, produced in 1986). Having been there at the recording site and having heard what the microphone feed did (and having heard many microphone feeds before and since), I can instantly if something is right or not. Having your own reference is really handy; how else are you to know if a recording is really sounding right?

Stable and focused is no worries.

Sheesh are things really so dire? My stuff sounds great. Maybe on the bleeding edge.....

One thing never changes....worry about the things that matter that you can control, not those that do not as much and you can’t.

Obsessive compulsive audiophiles are fine. Someone has to worry about the outstanding details in a lab environment before something is ready for mass consumption.

Its just not me though.   I spend my time listening and enjoying the music whenever I can.

I’m an east coaster and usually try to get to Capital Audiofest each summer. Always some nice finds there.

I have moved the above comment over to "Has anyone heard..." thread.

geoffkait

It is a logical fallacy that one can automatically achieve audio nirvana using an ideal amplifier, assuming for a moment that is what yours is. Things are just not that simple

Your right things are not that simple. This is why it took 25 years of intense research targeting one problem - distortion in AUDIO amplifiers.

No one else has come close to a full understanding of the amplifying process used specifically for signals in the audio spectrum. Amplifiers used for radio, video, uhf, microwave etc. do not have to deal with delivering analog data from a different medium. Audio amplifiers require the total package that must include velocity. The signal has to return back to sound waves in your home. It cannot be done in an environment where the velocity is unchecked.

Try to remember back in the day when you may have went from a mid-fi Kenwood or Sansui receiver to your first real audiophile gear (most likely tubes) and what a stark day and night difference it made.  For you It was a whole new world of audio. Finally it sounded like real music.

Then there was the horror of new digital (CD’s) on the scene and all it did was give you stress and was not anything like a good analog front end.

(I'm sure most of you will say it is still the case)

Look at how difficult it was for me to explain the [fact] that there are 2 separate distinct speeds happening in the amplifier.

1)     Electricity traveling at (speed of light)

2)     Electrical signals representing sound waves traveling at (750 mph)

This is nothing new – if the wave phenomenon could not “flow” through the hardware at this speed you would not be able to use it for audio.

What I have done is to guarantee the flow will be at exactly one constant speed or velocity.

That was no simple - It takes control at quantum levels to achieve this function.

If the velocity is perfectly nailed down – you have emulated the properties of air.

It has never been done before. That’s why it is a breakthrough. That’s why when you hear it in operation it is not recognizable as electrically delivered sound.

All it takes is for people to be open minded enough to learn something new that directly impacts the world of entertainment.

Judge for yourself [after] you hear what it does

The worst skeptic is converted within seconds of exposure to this process.

They may have no idea how it was done - but now know it obviously works.

Roger

Roger wrote,

"geoffkait

Would you settle for whatever distortion you get in the concert hall during a live performance?

Its nothing but air which is a linear transfer medium.

If it did exactly the same thing in your home would you say "this is just like being there"? If not then some kind of distortion is happening at home and the alternative medium [electrical] transfer of sound waves does not match the purity of air.

It is a simple concept. Make the electronics act like air.
It requires that you match the velocity of air which is zero with no wind.
The sound waves velocity riding on top of a zero velocity (air) results in a single un-modulated constant speed of Mach One (about 750 mph)
When that happens you will not be able to tell them apart."

This is no longer a theory."

The problem with your argument is that there are many other sources of distortion in the home audio system other than the amplifier; thus, even though you might have solved this particular problem in an audio amplifier, I still cannot say to myself, "This is live." It is a logical fallacy that one can automatically achieve audio nirvana using an ideal amplifier, assuming for a moment that is what yours is. Things are just not that simple. There are distortions associated with speakers, with room acoustics anomalies such as slap echo, standing waves, reflected waves, with the effects of seismic vibration, the effects of mechanical vibration of motors, transforrmers, etc., the effects of static electric fields on the CD or LP and cables, the effects of induced magnetic fields in the wires and cables, the very large induced magnetic fields in large honking transformers, distortions resulting from wire and cable and fuses being installed in the wrong direction, distortions due to local environmental influences (Morphic fields), improper speaker set up, not to mention weather effects, sun spots effects, time of day effects. In other words in order to achieve "live" the audiophile who is attempting to get into audio nirvana must pay attention to everything, not just the speed of acoustic waves in air.

Bel Canto ref1000m amps.  

Integrated amp in second system is Bel Canto c5i

Mapman
If you dont mind my asking who makes the class D amp?

Roger

Actually that is a good combo.

Preamp is tube.  Amp is Class D.  

I also have class D integrated with similar performance in that area.    Speakers room acoustics and setup has a lot to do with it. 

mapman,

It sounds like it is well broken in and probably tubes - yes?
Finding a way to match the good attributes of tubes is difficult in SS but not impossible. Most SS gear cannot do it. Class A does not guarantee perfection.

Roger

My setup sounds like live from most any perspective in the room.   That's exactly what I was shooting for

I've yet to hear a functioning amplifier than can't project a stable image.

I think it is a matter of how stable and how focused compared to live.

It takes a tremendous amount of discipline and control during the amplifying process to not tamper with the delicate location information streamed to you via the sound waves.

Most high end systems do get it right except it does not approach what you need to have your brain latch onto what appears to be an actual live event.

You may be able to hear what seems like a clear image of someone playing a violin and perhaps where he is standing but it does not compare to being able to hear and perceive gestures like those caused by the actual playing and bowing movements. That kind of detail was normally available only if you attended the performance. Once you hear the difference between high end systems and actual "live" sound reproduction it becomes obvious that it is not even close. Its a whole different experience.

After listening for some time under those conditions - the typical high end system sounds distorted for the first time.

Because of some legal things that are happening I cannot tell you what I have done to make this happen but I do have auto-focus circuitry that totally stabilizes the venue.

It is similar to the "Steadi-cam" system used in motion pictures to remove vibration from the optical image. It is impossible to obtain massive resolution and focus without the stabilization technique in place.

I had to understand the effects of the burn-in process because it did contaminate the auto-focus circuitry. The good news is that when it is burned-in the contamination goes away.

It is the non-symmetrical charge/discharge rate of a component that still has forming current in the equation. This causes the component to have 2 separate impedance values depending on charge or discharge. The forming current is typically added to the charge direction but not always.
Moving equipment between power sources triggers some additional break-in.  If you take your gear to someone else's house and set it up with a slightly lower power line voltage than your house - the main filter caps will attempt to re-form in the downward direction. If the power line is slightly higher it will require more forming current until it finishes. Focus can only be achieved in the absence of break-in.

Roger

I've heard speakers that you can pick up and move around and all the while the soundstage is perfectly focused. Not all speakers do that but some do.

The first time I head that Mike Maloney was moving his Tesla loudspeakers around while I was in the listening chair during a dealer demo. The soundstage was very focused on that speaker.

Since a set of our early amps was playing at the time, must be that we got that focus thing several decades ago.

Bottom line - even with perfect bolted down loudspeakers with good coherency they cannot project a stable image due to the dynamic modulation of the velocity fed to the speakers by an unstable amplifier.

It must be that its all in the setup. I've yet to hear a functioning amplifier than can't project a stable image.

The difference is one is static phase error and one is dynamic phase error.
I am referring to dynamic phase error caused by the amplifying process.

If you have a dynamic speaker with tweeter, mid and bass drivers and they are time aligned (distance from you ear and delivering a coherent sound)  and you add a shim under the back of the speaker stands so they are now tilted down slightly - you would still be able to hear the music but the coherency will be off by the same amount all the time. this is due to the physical maneuvering of the cabinets (mis-aligned). The tweeter is now somewhat closer to you and so the highs will now arrive too soon.
This is an example of a static phase error. if you had someone take your speakers and rocked them back and forth while you were listening - that would be dynamic phase errors. It is a process of modulation not tilt.

A tilted speaker still gives you a view of the soundstage (but from slightly different view)

A modulated speaker cabinet will cause the sounstage to blurr like a shake table. Under those conditions it is difficult to nail down where everything is.

Bottom line - even with perfect bolted down loudspeakers with good coherency they cannot project a stable image due to the dynamic modulation of the velocity fed to the speakers by an unstable amplifier.

90% of all system problems are from the electronic amplifiers.
10% is all the cables, power cords and magic pebbles.

Phase modulation is gross amounts of distortion since your entire perception of a live soundstage depends on objects not shifting around during the playback process. (like someone shaking you speakers)

It is literally the same thing as a photograph taken out of focus.

Remove the shaky nature of the display and everything is stable and in focus.

That can only happen inside the amplifier circuitry.

Roger

If you kill the phase errors you kill harmonic distortion.

Hm. That's good work if you can get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_distortion
In a nutshell though such is not the case, you have have harmonic distortion while at the same time having little or no phase distortion. They are not mutually exclusive.

geoffkait

Would you settle for whatever distortion you get in the concert hall during a live performance?

Its nothing but air which is a linear transfer medium.

If it did exactly the same thing in your home would you say "this is just like being there"? If not then some kind of distortion is happening at home and the alternative medium [electrical] transfer of sound waves does not match the purity of air.

It is a simple concept. Make the electronics act like air.
It requires that you match the velocity of air which is zero with no wind.
The sound waves velocity riding on top of a zero velocity (air)  results in a single un-modulated constant speed of Mach One (about 750 mph)
When that happens you will not be able to tell them apart.

If music is traveling toward you in the hall at 750 mph why would you not want it to hit you in your living room at 750 mph? That is your proof that it is live.

If it deviates even a little (747 mph - 753 mph)  it becomes a red flag to your brain and tells you it is not live.

This is no longer a theory.

Roger