Let's KICK that anthill! Psychicanimal, where are you? Whoooo-eeee! |
Now I am throwing out an idea to which I hoped for constructive brainstorming. Nrenter discussed the topic seriously, accepting it as an issue worth thinking about, that he had in fact noticed. What I'm talking about is real, not cooked up simply to upset people. Was he correct in his assessment? It boiled down to the social environment. But what if the explanation is simpler: what if his friend's system simply is better at timing, end of story? What if it is not his engineering training which makes his home system ocasionally less musically involving (being again a case of subjective/social environment in Nrenter's eyes), but that his system emphasizes the information at the expense of the musical message (please don't take offense, Nrenter, just possibilities)? Hasn't anyone ever tweaked their favourite piece only to reach a point where suddenly it seems to have lost the magic which prompted us to tweak, while giving us all that extra detail? I know it's happened to me. Many people have noticed as well that music is simply more fun in the car: no friends, no beer here! Whatever the explanation, Nrenter recognized the phenomenon I'm talking about. Drubin highlighted the existence of a writer and a magazine which were in fact devoted to the subject I'm talking about: a magazine which blamed "bad" equipment for the problem. What if it's not bad equipment but, say, synergy problems? If it's simply an issue of capacitance, for instance, wouldn't it be good to know this: that improper design with respect to capacitance is the culprit in systems which time badly? This is what I mean when I say that high-end manufacturers (not all, as I clearly wrote , but some) could learn from listening to lower-end equipment.
Across the pond an entire country/audio community (the British) have been saying since I got into the game in the early '80s that large power supplies damage the timing, or Prat. Now simpy dubbing it "Prat" simply makes the idea "cute" and makes it easy for us to dismiss it as unimportant - this is a form of rhetoric designed to steer us away from this aspect, not focus out attention on it. But I believe, Art Dudley believes, all those Naim and Exposure followers believe, Linnies, horn-speaker fans, to name but a few, that timing is the supreme issue. Anyone who plays an instrument knows that this is the supreme issue, apart from the notes themselves. Perhaps the British were right. Why is it that low-powered tube amps are now sweeping the country? I know that a friend of mine recently tried one of these, and the timing in his expensive sytem leaped forward, and now we sit with bated breath in awe before the musical performances in his basement. His system is high-end, extremely detailed, dynamic and so forth, but the magic is back. This shows that high-end systems can have the magic, but the fact is many simply fail, as his did before the low-powered amp, while we listened for details, playing the same old audiophile records again and again.
Right now audio magazines are always going on about information retrieval of some sort. The more information an item extracts, the better it is (with of course some exceptions). And of course this is related to money. Frankly this approach bores me: there is no genius in building larger and larger power supplies, in building heavier and heavier speaker cabinets, and in charging more and more money to do this. Will a thousand-pound record-player necessarily sound better than a 20 pound record-player, and is this an interesting or ingenious solution? Not at a $20,000 premium. To provide an example of an alternative: the Well Tempered 'table is ingenious, and William Firebaugh deserves all the recognition he gets. Of course if you keep throwing money at a problem - keep thickening the baffle, build exotic cabinets and so on - the information retrieval will improve, but this is an engineering approach to a musical problem. It doesn't work, the problem is not that simple. Thus we are trained to think in this way. But if all audio magazines only considered timing issues, (relegating information - small details - to the background Prat currently occupies) I submit we would now all be aiming for timing in our equipment. As Nrenter suggested, it's in our heads. Since we don't place Prat at the fore-front, we don't think about it, and since we don't think about it, we don't understand why our expensive equipment isn't enthralling (impressive maybe, but not enthralling), and we fiddle endlessly with cabling and so on instead of being entranced as we had had hoped when we spent the money. I know my system is a success when a non-audiophile asks me to play more music. And I know others of you think the same way, though you're keeping silent. I think it's time we think about it. It's been said often enough that the high-end needs an overhaul, that it's on its last legs, ect. Is it too much to ask that there's a good chance that the next multi-grand item I buy is enthralling? Of course our experience and wisdom comes into it, but there is tremendous peer pressure (audio magazines, price, etc.) to go against our instincts and buy that "ultimate" piece. I'm not against the high-end, I'm against unimaginative approaches, and high-end items which are a fraud. Remember, this is a discussion forum. Plato's works were the result of such forums, science advanced because of such discussions (Galileo corresponded with various other famed astronomers to advance science). While we are not all Socrateses (!) or Platos or Galileos, maybe someone reading this forum is, and he designs audio equipment. Any other Nrenters out there want to make a go? |
Drubin, I have to admit that I am an admirer of Art Dudley! He definitely had a point, and he was entertaining and fun. I will mourn Listener magazine to the end of time, but thank God Art's still writing!
4yanx, this is a "discussion forum" and what's the point if most or nearly all of the time answers given involve that tired old horse spend more money, get on the "inevitable upgrade path" blah blah blah? Or if we avoid discussions? It's not all meant to be simple answers to simple questions, is it? Galileo challenged the science of his time, and science advanced. Now I am not Galileo, but I can share in a bit of his spirit. Can't we be more creative, try different technologies, different angles? Timing is information which is actually more important to the music than all of the rest of the audiophile goodies combined: check sheet music, the music lies in the beats between the notes, tempos, pauses... It seems to me, as it has to many audio reviewers, that a lot of equipment is being designed by businessmen who see an opportunity, but either have no love of music, or don't understand it. There's no substitute for talent, an engineering degree is not enough. I'm serious when I write that many audio designers need to look at the issue of timing, and sincere in wanting to advance the art. Your input is part of a discussion. While I seem to be the most vocal one carrying this particular torch on this site, many here agree with me, as you noted. I am trying to draw them out, as they seem to be relegated to the sidelines. By the way, your Spadedeck story explains a lot. I never named any particular 'tables, I made an effort to avoid the issue of idler-wheel drive vs belt-drive, I invited those with money in their decks to join in. I'm also putting my money where my mouth is. If I'm full of crap, then those who build these Lencos for $200 plus a Rega arm will let you all know. I throw down the gauntlet. Remember the Dynaco amps, or the LS3/5A kits (still one of the best speakers ever made)? I simply tried to inject a little bit of fun back into this hobby, as well as restore a measure of sanity: $2500 cartridges called "good for the money" or "a bargain" indeed! I anticipated your type when I wrote "Now there are those who have spent lots of dosh on their tables, and those who plan on spending lots of dosh on their 'tables, who will tell you this project is no good, that the Lencos are no good, that idler wheel-drives are no good, etc. Don't believe them. I will not make a dime doing this for you, which will actually cost me some money and time and effort. I'm doing this to restore some measure of fun to the hobby, as well as further the art of music reproduction. Is spending $5000 fun? No. Conversely, there are those again with expensive set-ups who will want to join in in a spirit of fun and experimentation, the heart of this hobby of ours, and they are welcome, and I hope to get some input from these as well as everyone involved." Strangely enough, those who've signed up or are planning on signing up have expensive systems, with expensive analogue rigs. Consider this. I am on record praising the AR 'tables (which are timing champions), I have given advice to the effect of buying Sotas, and have been on record writing to someone who loves Thorens to keep buying Thorens. I keep an open mind, and don't believe detail is everything, which is why I love my modded AR-XA as well. For those who don't want to go to the trouble of building a great big marbled deck, I suggest the AR-XA, a belt-driven 'table which shines when you mount a better arm on it. Simply remove the tonearm, take a hacksaw and cut off the cast arm-bearing from the subchassis, stick a stone bit in a drill into the remaining hole and grind away until you can fit a Rega arm in the hole. Cut an armboard (you will have to take a saw and cut a hole in the upper metal plate where the arm emerges) from hardwood (not oak) or acrylic or Corian, and mount Rega. Presto, killer belt-driven 'table, killer timing, excellent isolation. No prejudice here. |
I second Nrenter's motion. I know my system is right when I can lie down on the couch, forget about the sweet spot, and listen to hours of albums. And oh, he's right about the beer too. Perhaps I have read too much of Art Dudley's stuff, Drubin, after all! |
Lugnut, tell me more about the Supratek, price and so forth and sites where I might read a review. I both agree and disagree with you as well, as the experience of walking into a high-end shop and being forced to sit down and enjoy the music is as elusive as ever, at least in my experience. Of course, it does happen, as it did recently when an ASL Tulip amplifier was driving a pair of Oskar Heil air-motion loudspeakers, which simply swept me away. To get back to the fun aspect, I'm looking forward to trying out the Bottlehead preamp. Maybe you're right after all, and things are getting better. But I still think that cheaper items can teach us something, and certainly the automatic quality-connected-to-money thing is still very prevalent, if only in the form of the constant "trickle-down" articles out there, about pieces of equipment which on audition simply doesn't get the Prat. So what exactly is trickling down? I've suggested it before and I will suggest it again: I'm beginning to suspect that "neutrality" is in fact in many cases a colouration in disguise, a stripping of the music (but not always!) from the information. And don't forget the Supratek info! Now we're getting somewhere. |
Twl, good to hear from you again! If you check my original statement, I didn't say all high-end sucks, giving as example the C-J stuff. So yeah, buying an expensive component can pay off, but expense is not an indicator of quality: for that, talent is needed. I am saying that we are often misguided (meaning guided by others to bad decisions: press, manufacturers, peers), and that we should take a closer look at why cheaper equipment is so often more musical. Your thoughts on simpler-is-better are spot on, and we should look closer at this. As to the idler wheel thing, if you check my other thread you will see that I own some "high-end" decks, which is why the idler-wheel drives blew my mind in the first place, as I was shocked to hear an old abandoned technology so easily blow my high-end 'tables (I own a Maplenoll and an Audiomeca, both of which easily blow the Linn in terms of information, which I hasten to add is not everything: I love the sound of classic three-point suspension designs). This discovery was a complete accident, which was heard by a certain millionaire I knew in Europe, who funded my investigations into this with the aim of producing a marketable design: the result being the Lencco/Rega pairing and chassis. But the timing was bad, as at that time everyone was abandoning vinyl (with Shure terminating prodcution and so on) and idler-wheel technology very expensive to implement. The rumble issue, as I've pointed out, is due to poor implementation: just as we now know that a resonant box is a no-no in belt-drive designs, leading to all the exposed subchassis designs, solid plinths and so on here - so this applies doubly to idler-wheel designs, due to the more powerful motors. The fix is cheap and easy: a heavy, solid plinth instead of a cheap resonant one to sink the vibrations. This works very well, even if it seems primitive. The rumble issue is old propaganda/dogma from the days that belt-drives were touted as the new great improvement, which reminds me of the early days when solid-state first appeared, and tubes were dismissed as inferior. Again I point to the revered Sugano, who we must assume had good ears and a revealing system. Your comments are a breath of fresh air, as is your attitude! And I share in your "upper middle level" philosophy, which I follow myself, as I don't like to be distracted by too much information (for instance, I don't want to hear that one of my favourite pieces of music sounds like crap, preferring equipment that strikes a balance in which I can hear the information, which, being an audiophile I love, but which makes all my recordings enjoyable). |
Unsound and Drubin, actually Drubin first, I think you're on the right track: speed and timing are two different things. For instance, I hear more correct timing - to my subjective ears, but other around me have noticed it - from tube amps, which generally sound "slower" than solid state amps. Emphasis on leading edge dynamics is not the spaces between the notes, or the lingerings or contrasting stacatto of certain notes or phrases. Rhythm is a primitive things which many solid state amps get right, the basic bass line timing: what I'm talking about in timing is a more subtle thing, difficult to describe, which actually came up in a discussion of the Shure V15 cartridge. If you permit me, I'll quote from this, as it took some time to put my finger on it: "We tend to think only in terms of detail, and though the Shure is respectable here, many beat it. But the rhythmic interactions between the different components of a piece of music - right down to the timing of the rising intensities or softenings of a singer in counterpoint to other instruments - is simply more clearly discernible especially on a Shure, and on MMs in general." Now let's lay aside the whole MMs vs MCs thing. Still hard to get a bead on what I'm talking about. Part of my point is that the language the audio press uses becomes our reference point, and we end up unable to hear anything else, because we do not have a name for it. It's like learning to hear imaging, which we don't hear until someone points it out and uses te word "imaging." This is a subtle form of mind control which "trains" us to go for predictable and easily identifiable things like detail and dynamics, thus allowing (some) high-end manufacturers to start designing something marketable. Pieces that emphasize leading edge information counterfeit true timing, which can be better heard through some slower-spunding components. We recognize this quality, I think, when we say some component "just sounds right." If we had the right language (a change, or a shift in emphasis in point of view), then this quality would be recognized as fundamental to the music: we can live without soundstaging, or without bass, or without tremendous amounts of detail, but if we don't have this subtle timing thing I'm trying to describe, then we aren't really happy with our systems. It's this subtle interaction between instruments with respect to lags and starts which enthralls us: the rest just impresses us. This is beginning to sound like a Socratic Dialogue!
In the context of this thread, I have to describe an experience I just had at a high-end shop I just came from. I've already said that the experience of walking into such a shop and being drawn in by the music is extremely rare, and I just had such an experience. A pair of top-of-the-line Tetra speakers were playing at the back of this store, and the music emanating from them was wonderful and I was drawn like a bee to honey. Now on the racks behind the speakers was lots of impressive equipment - Copland amps, YBA and so on - and I asked the proprietor what was playing. And he pointed to...a Rotel integrated RA-02 and matching CD player! I was sorely tempted to just buy them and simply bow out of the game altogether...I still am, hmmmm...just couldn't get over it. Amusing anyway, as I fell for the old "it sounds good it must be something expensive" thing myself. Hoist by my own petard! |
I see now that I didn't explain myself clearly enough through this thread, and got carried away myself, though there were interesting and informative results! Some say I am condemning the high-end in its entirety, some associate the statements with a condemnation of complex designs...the focus is too much on the equipment and not enough on the idea. So that people know where I'm coming from, I will say that I am a media analyst, meaning that I examine and analyse how the press uses various rhetorical tricks (playing with the facts) to manipulate public opinion. This includes the audio press. So I felt that the constant "trickle down" the audio press uses encourages us to automatically assume that the high-end is superior, and that we should thus always assume that spending more will gain us more. While this is true in some cases, it is not true in all. Those with experience have all bought equipment which, while more "informative", left us ultimately dissatisfied. The audio press is definitely not objective in this, because if they did not laud the new cost-no-object designs and prod us into constantly spending, then they would have no future. This, again, is not to say that these pieces do not deserve the accolades, but does point to a conflict of interest...we must keep our eyes open and question. If a basically unmusical piece's design is incorporated at a lower price level, then what is the result? Does a purely engineering solution (say more mass which means more expense) always lead to an improvement? Do the men who design these expensive pieces actually have talent with respect to musical as opposed to information issues? And finally, is it always true that the cheaper components cannot teach designers of expensive equipment a thing or two? If cheaper equipment often sounds more musical, then I believe a good designer should stop and say "hmmm...why?" So to the constant and uniform "trickle down" which is universal rhetoric in the audio press, I say "damn it; trickle up!" Quite simply, question and oppose, the key to advancement in any science or art, audio being both. |
Of course synergy is crucial, good point Weiserb. As I pointed out in another thread, amount of information seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of music which survives. Our main aim should be musicality before information, but the upgrade path seems to emphasize information before musicality. This hobby is filled with pitfalls, and we forget in all the press hype that music and not information is the point. Both the press and high-end dealers seem to forget this, and in the process, lead us to think as they do. Interesting that all the companies you mention make tube equipment. I'm really beginning to like this thread! More please! |
