a old 1578 russian tube sounds nice made by melz or reflector.
Last edited:
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
If “right” is in terms of measurable fidelity, then it is not right.
If “right” is in terms of subjective appeal, then it can be right.
I suppose logic can be applied, but I did not consider that approach.
And logic does not usually, or does not always, win in a contest with emotion.
Which begs the question of whether “detail” is enhanced by the harmonics which we are sensitive to?
And whether that is also somewhat influenced by the type of music, like a small ensemble, or a large group?
If that is a 'fact' what is the objective quantum of audio resolution that is measurable apart from any one person's perception and establishes a component's resolution as objective fact? Visual analogies won't help you here.
Can you be more precise about what psychoacoustic studies you are addressing? As far as I know, most commonly quoted references and pseudo-references address the now old electronics and speakers, not the modern gear having one or more orders of magnitude lower distortion and noise.
IMO most modern high end can't be analysed based on essays or rumors from many decades ago.
We could say that the added distortion and/or noise of some simpler signal paths enhance some people feeling of flow, nuance and note completion.
One of the points of a dialogue is that the points can be understood.
Please try again - I may be slow, but I’ll try.
OK…
So is the output SPL matching the input’s signal the best case?
Or which added harmonics are best?
Or is it when there is minimal added harmonics, or maximum SINAD, as being the optimum?
And give rise to increased dynamic range, contrast, and changes of venue with recordingsWe could say that the added distortion and/or noise of some simpler signal paths enhance some people feeling of flow, nuance and note completion.
It is fair to be skeptical. Of course it is overwrought and exaggerating to declare anything in this subjective hobby to be an objective fact. (Do I always have to draw between the lines?)
To be fair to me, I wrote "observable." I did not write "measureable."
All I mean is that if we have a full audio system, and in that system we compare a Lamm preamp to the big Boulder preamp, I predict that a statistically significant fraction of audiophiles would find the Boulder to be more resolving. (According to the generally accepted definition of "resolution," not Peter's idiosyncratic version.)
This is your prediction, not based on your experience. What you mention will need be true on Wilsons not on Altecs if speakers are kept the same, and Boulder on Wilson or YG will have less observable resolution than sets on horns (can think of various combinations having heard both).
So we have gone from a form of fact to your personal prediction, and you do not define what you mean by “a statistically significant fraction of audiophiles.” Do you mean a majority of those being asked to make the comparison or is it a much more vague standard?
You also previously made the claim about the Lamm LL one four box signature flagship preamp, and now it is just any Lamm preamp. Have you listened to many different Lamm preamps?
Have you even done the comparison to make the claim that now only some audio files would agree with? What kind of system would even have such different preamplifiers without changing other variables? To reach meaningful conclusions, those preamplifiers would have to be matched properly with their amplifiers which have to be matched with their speakers and room.
In my opinion, the definition of resolution in music reproduction is not that idiosyncratic Ron. It’s simply the information embedded in the recording and whether or not it remains intact at the other end to present a convincing or realistic or natural impression. It is not detail specific or a higher pixel count that you keep referencing. What is the nature of those pixels? Resolution in audio is more encompassing. If a drum beat does not have the impact, weight, speed, scale, tone or clarity in one presentation but it does in another, we can conclude that the information is embedded in the recording, and that the former system cannot resolve that information in its entirety as well as the other system.
A subjective fact can become an objective fact, as you perhaps unwilling suggested. If you carry a statistical analysis of the opinions about the occurrence and report the result with an error bar, it becomes objective data with a precise meaning. We could say that your objective fact is that 1 user +/- 100% found the Lamm less resolving.
Unless you want to contribute to the alternative musical way of expressing stereo creating chaos and re-write statistical analysis I suggest you stick to the common use of words. As written, your original statement could be considered abusive by most people, although I could easily feel tempted to agree with your main idea.
Having owned the LL1 and the L2 ref my own subjective opinion is that the LL1 (all tubes) had higher resolution than L2ref (solid state with tubed power supply) and both reduced the resolution of the dCS Vivaldi stack. IMO, YMMV.
Apparently the 2nd and 3rd harmonics can enhance our perception of soundstage and detail, as well as 'dynamics' (depending on their phase). Of course they also contribute to 'richness', 'bloom' or 'warmth'.
Put simply, the lower ordered harmonics are pleasing. This is literally what has caused the SET resurgence. The downfall of course is distortion can alter tonality(even though pleasant) and obscure detail. So while pleasing, an SET (unless imbued with properly applied feedback) can never be accurate or neutral. But for many its 'if this is wrong I don't want to be right'.
Another very successful sounding AC setup with planars...this time Alsyvox.
And yet, the modern gear sounds just as different from one another as gear did in the past, despite the supposed advances you state. What would be then your explanation for hearing these differences? Our imagination? If real and not distortion, then what?
And if it does in fact work like that (based on what I have read it doesn’t) ? Wouldn’t you still prefer the one that sounds that way over the one perceptually lacking flow, nuance and note completion…even if it measures orders of magnitude worse?We could say that the added distortion and/or noise of some simpler signal paths enhance some people feeling of flow, nuance and note completion.
Don’t know what you mean by output SPL matching input’s signal.
Some researchers have concluded that an exponential decay of harmonics staring with 2nd harmonic is the least offensive of all patterns because it “hides” in our perceptual blind spots.
Yes, they sound even more different than gear from the past! As I said before we do not know the theory behind the reasons for these differences, no current studies were carried on these low level artifacts affect sound in stereo systems. In the high-end we rely on our subjective perception of the effect of these differences.
It is not hard to see that even in the absence of theory and science on the high-end we have excellently sounding and poorly sounding gear with top measurements - as they say, the development of steam engines predated the formal science of thermodynamics.
Surely our readers would love to consider what you have read - did you get something new since we addressed the topic before?
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |