Newcomer here. I wonder why nobody has posted in the original E mat thread in a long time. I will copy my post to the new thread--New Omega E Mat from Perfect Path Technologies.
My perspective is as a classical violinist who has performed solo in concertos with orchestra, chamber music, and as a listener who prefers the close up and bright sound of the 1st row of the hall. As a holistic MD who knows that we don’t know all the technical reasons for why certain treatments work, I have an open mind to what anyone claims in their personal listening experiences. I also respect the physicists like Geoff Kaitt who are seeking to understand the technical reasons for audio performance.
That said, I am confused by many of the sonic observations made. Of course, YMMV, but here goes. There is not much mention of various types of electronics used in poster’s systems, but it seems that the majority is tube equipment. They like the fact that the E mat seems to make things sound rounder and more pleasant. Harsh sounding early CD’s seem to have less harshness and brightness. Kedoades said that he usually didn’t like his bright/edgy sounding Telefunken tubes, but after the E mat use, they sounded less bright. All this leads me to think that the E mat rolls off the high frequencies, or yields more emphasis on bass. On the other hand, these users claim that there is more detail and clarity heard, but is this mainly in the lower freq?
What do the solid state accuracy and neutrality oriented users think? Usually, more accurate SS electronics reveals more HF than euphonic tube stuff, and exhibits less roundness and more harshness in lower quality recordings. I am curious enough to order these products and try for myself, but would just like some more clarity from the users. The new E mats may be a new ball game. Thanks to all.
|
jay23,
I agree that high fidelity should not be about flavors of the month. I will always seek maximum information retrieval. |
Frank--thanks for your responses to my questions. Ric has confirmed that his SS amp also benefits from PPT in similar ways as you found with your ARC. Let's hear from other SS owners who are users of PPT.
I agree that ARC is the most neutral and least tubey of tube electronics. Going way back, I liked the SP6 preamp, but then abandoned ARC and the similarly un-tubey Theta preamp when I found that many SS products were more snappy/detailed and still musical. BTW, my definition of "musicality" differs from the conventional audiophile definition which refers to pleasant, comfy sounds. My view is that the scratches and noises which are part of the natural sounds of all instruments contribute to the music. And many pieces feature noises for a deliberate effect, such as the col legno tapping of the bow stick in the last movement of Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique. The truly musical component is the most revealing of the music but still preserving the coherency of the tone.
|
jay23,
Recently I met a young mastering engineer from Bklyn who worked with the renowned Bob Ludwig. He said that at 72, Ludwig had excellent ears and taught the younger proteges what to listen for. It is likely that Ludwig has diminished HF acuity, but he certainly has judgment about what he does hear. He could still have excellent hearing in the midrange, where the most critical things occur. This reminds me of some renowned elderly violin teachers I have had, who have pointed out things I overlooked. So take Frank (oregonpapa). An audiogram would probably show deficiencies, but he is a sophisticated and experienced music lover who knows what to listen for.
25 years ago, I recorded for fun, using 2 Neumann KM184 mikes in approximate ORTF style, that's it. I placed them very close, just behind the conductor's head or very close in string quartet ensembles, etc. My recordings were very immediate, unlike most commercial ones with ambience, etc. I wanted to emulate my favorite recordings of Donald Johanos conducting the Dallas Symphony in Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances and Copland Rodeo on 2 concurrent LPs on Turnabout from 1967. These recordings have direct impact. There is tremendous detail without the muddy effects of ambience. After this recording of the Rachmaninoff, I cannot listen to other recordings which lose impact while trying to bathe everything in ambience. In a way, these Turnabout recordings produce sound that is "in the room," but they have the maximum clarity, detail and impact.
So, I would like to hear your objective findings, good or bad, about the PPT products you have tried in familiar systems.
|
geoffkait,
No compression in my recordings. I dabbled in recording to prove that I could make more immediate, detailed classical recordings than anything available. I spent a modest amount of money in the right places--mikes, Bryston mike preamp which was the fastest and most natural preamp which I determined by my own tests.
|
Frank,
Do you remember that 1967 Turnabout LP of the Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances? It was a demo LP in audio salons when I got started in 1978. Last weekend on a radio program called "Rock (Rach) of all ages" they played a set of Ward Marston's compilation of historic recordings, including Rachmaninoff himself playing the piano score of that piece. Rach was singing along, "la, la, la" which sounds the same in Russian. The piano arrangement has more musical cohesion than the orchestral version, which sounds more like a sonic showpiece.
|
Frank,
I have an LP of Erica Morini playing 1st violin in Beethoven's op 18 no 4 quartet. Felix Galimir on 2nd violin. Very passionate.
|
So far, people have reported that the Omega+ mats are great, when added to the system already containing the regular mats. If you remove the originals, the benefits reportedly last awhile, so it is difficult to judge the effect of the new + mat if it is added quickly. How about waiting the time it takes to lose the benefit of the original, and then add the + mat?
|
Frank,
Thanks for your reco of the Erica Morini Tchaikovsky concerto. Even on youtube, the sound is good. This is a beautiful feminine interpretation, with accurate, nonshowy dignity. Even just the opening phrase has simple, lyrical beauty. I hate the female violinists of today, like Anne Sophie Mutter and Nadja Salerno Sonnenberg, who play like gruff truck drivers. |
geoffkait,
For over a year, I have been concerned about the medical ill effects of environmental RFI/EMI. I bought the esi24 meter from lessEMF.com, which measures environmental low freq electrical, magnetic, and RF. I found that I get better sleep in low RF rooms vs high RF rooms. About 5% of the general population is affected clinically by high RF, but on a subliminal level, there are ill effects on cellular function, which impact risks of all diseases.
Someone would have to measure RF in electrical wiring of outlets and components to see if these PPT products can be measured. Meanwhile, some people here have noted that the PPT makes the sound uniformly wonderful at all times of the day/night. Without power conditioning advices, many of us have noted marked variations according to time of day. It is often still unpredictable, depending on what's going on locally. We are guessing that the sound quality varies according to levels of RFI, but it would be nice to verify with electrical RFI measurements.
|
jafreeman,
You said this about day 12 of the + mat, "they are now overtaken by a richness of low and midrange overtones, newly blossomed out of what seemed like a formerly stark presentation." I am interested in a crisp, detailed sound which is natural and coherent, the way the real thing is. This quote suggests that you now have a rounded, euphonic sound, the opposite of what I am seeking. Are the highs now subdued in favor of more low and midrange freq?
|
I have an open mind, but what technical evidence does anyone have that the mats reduce RFI? OK, the music sounds better to some users, but exactly what distortion is being reduced? Perhaps geoffkait can try to measure these things. With no technical information available, this is all speculation. Maybe Krissy has some test data that Tim did. |
I am not a basher but a seeker of truth via listening and measurements if the latter is possible. Yes, I have purchased and made shielded clothing which improves my sleep, and this correlates with dramatically lower RF measurements under the clothing. On lessEMF.com, there are advertised specs which I have confirmed by my own measurements using the esi24 meter I bought from them. So I am seeking someone with more technical expertise than me, to measure these PPT products. You all think that the improvement in sound is due to reduction of RFI, but you don't know, and maybe most happy users don't care. Maybe Tim Mrock was a master technician who did these measurements in the development of these products, or he developed them empirically by listening to what sounded good to him. I still think he (now Krissy) could reveal these measurements without revealing proprietary info about the actual construction and materials used. This is analogous to amp manufacturers who reveal the specs but don't reveal the actual circuits.
|
Frank,
Thanks for your balanced info about various tweaks that were good and others that were bad. You also said, "various contact enhancers that sounded great in the beginning, then degraded over time and had to be removed." In what time periods did it take for them to degrade? This might be true about Total Contact as well. How long have you used it? We don't yet know how long it might take to degrade, and whether it will be able to be removed totally if this is indeed possible.
|
thecarpathian,
I thought atdavid's explanation informative. But if you found no difference with RFI shielding products, then these PPT products are doing something other than reducing RFI. I still say that technical measurements on these PPT products can be released by Krissy without revealing proprietary secrets, just as amp manufacturers do with relevant user info such as power, THD, bandwidth and such, without revealing the actual circuit. |
Fleschler's finding that the E-mat caused forward/bright sound is opposite to the majority of the findings by other people that the E-mat yields a rounder, warm sound. Krissy also says that the effect is more warmth. Frank said that it is not euphonic, but the word "euphonic" is not as precise as saying that the overall effect is towards warmth, "better" balance (jafreeman said things don't stick out as much). In this area, atdavid has a valid question about whether all this means that the effect is less HF and more lower freq. It may not be answered by measurement, just as we know that specs on electronics don't predict whether they are warm or not.
I don't question the sincerity of all these observations and questions, but I observe that many audiophiles like rounded and laid back sound. In my case, I dislike rounded, laid back sound, because of my enjoyment of music heard close up and the sharp sounds of nature like crickets, the crack of a golf club or baseball bat or buzzsaws, In my case, I am unlikely to try the mats. Not because I have a closed mind, but because the honest descriptions of the effect don't suit my personal taste.
|
Frank,
I also enjoy your musical comments. Strictly speaking, they don't relate to the E mat topic, so I hope the moderator doesn't take this too literally and delete all these pleasant comments. Clearly, the E mats have brought joy to many people, and their enthusiasm naturally spills over into these other topics. The moderator should only delete negative comments centered around personal attacks.
|
