Ron’s New System

[Atmasphere]

There is a famous sentence of Peter Walker on electrostatics - something like it is not difficult to make a good sounding one, very hard to make one the is reliable and lasts for long. I went through several electrostatics that had a short life and ended in the scrap. Just to say we need more information.

Yes!

As far as I have read it applies only to few modern recordings. Surely it can be relevant for some audiophiles, not for me.

If you play recordings from 1958 to well into the 1980s, one thing that happens is degradation of the master tape. For this reason a lot of the digital remasterings show a loss of the vivacious qualities of the original (and of course storage of the master is critical, especially when the 'high output' formulations on polyester showed up, which tend to shed with moisture absorption). In some cases though there is less processing. I've found its a case by case basis as to which is actually better, and there are a good number of recordings of which if you want to hear what they really are about, you have to get an original LP pressing.

 

[morricab]

There is a famous sentence of Peter Walker on electrostatics - something like it is not difficult to make a good sounding one, very hard to make one the is reliable and lasts for long. I went through several electrostatics that had a short life and ended in the scrap. Just to say we need more information.



As far as I have read it applies only to few modern recordings. Surely it can be relevant for some audiophiles, not for me.



I have some of his albums - they are in the lot of LPs I decided to keep and will go on listening in vinyl.

That’s because Peter Walker didn’t understand how to make stators that don’t arc. Acoustats don’t arc and thousands of them are still going strong on original panels for 50 years.

 

[microstrip]

That’s because Peter Walker didn’t understand how to make stators that don’t arc. Acoustats don’t arc and thousands of them are still going strong on original panels for 50 years.

Well, Acoustat was founded by Jim Strickland in 1974 he could learn from the experience of the old masters ... Their peak period was in the 80's and ceased production in the early 90's. (from diyaudio.com)

We say Acoustats don't arc only if we like the sound and accept the technical limitations of Acoustats and do not read forums like diyaudio.com - we find there long threads of people reporting problems on Acoustats and refurbishing/repairing them, describing the intrinsic problems. I respect and admire Acoustat - they were the people who developed the mixer concept also used by SoundLab and have read a lot about them, although I found them very colored and with poor stereo image for my taste - I can say that I watched a skilled technician repairing an old pair and long ago I have re-built a pair of ESL57.

Curiously Peter Walker knew how to make stators that do not arc. But he could not guess that thirty years later the glue used in his panels would fail and production would change to China ... I have read some Acoustat models had similar problems.

BTW, a good friend still uses a pair of ESL57 with the original never replaced panels and the old KT66 Quad tube amplifiers - I was the now regretful guy who sold him the amplifiers cheap decades ago ...

 

[the sound of Tao]

Mike, if you know a recording to be dynamic from hearing it on various systems, and then you play it on a system that you describe as transparent but the music sounds cold, flat and lacking "boogie factor", do you maintain that that system is still transparent to the information on the recording? What you describe here to me is not transparent because it obscures or distorts the dynamic information on the recording. I agree that it is not tonal distortion, but that information does not come through and is not heard, or (seen) experienced. What if the system can not portray the scale, the imaging, presence that is on the recording? Can it still be transparent?

I think I view transparency, like resolution, a bit more holistically that is common in the hobby. I agree the concepts are distinct, but to me, dynamics is a subset and an attribute and is characteristic of a system that is both highly transparent, and highly resolving, just like imaging, scale, and presence are. Without these subsets, the system is not truly transparent or resolving to me. It is not just about hearing the maximum amount of information on the recording. It is also how well it is presented. I know my view on this is uncommon.

I also see dynamics as an element within transparency. If we view that a transparent system doesn’t hide or veil the signal… to not render the dynamics is to veil the performance both in spirit and in context.

So for me transparency is a holistic value… a highly transparent system with the right recording leads to realism… dynamics, naturalness are all aspects and qualifiers of realism. A system that can’t sufficiently portray and be representative of the dynamics in the recording isn’t being transparent.

 

[PeterA]

I also see dynamics as an element within transparency. If we view that a transparent system doesn’t hide or veil the signal… to not render the dynamics is to veil the performance both in spirit and in context.

So for me transparency is a holistic value… a highly transparent system with the right recording leads to realism… dynamics, naturalness are all aspects and qualifiers of realism. A system that can’t sufficiently portray and be representative of the dynamics in the recording isn’t being transparent.

Exactly the way I think of it. In this sense of the holistic portrayal or presentation of the information on the recording, I think of resolution also holistically. As concepts, each is about inclusion and balance, not exclusion of attributes.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Exactly the way I think of it. In this sense of the holistic portrayal or presentation of the information on the recording, I think of resolution also holistically. As concepts, each is about inclusion and balance, not exclusion of attributes.

Completely, some might see transparency as just about not adding noise and that is certainly a part of it… but being transparent for me is also not obscuring or hiding from view the fragments or the existent whole qualities in a recording or a performance.

When you get amazing information on textures and spatial cues presented but not also the dynamics the spirit of the music is neutered… superficially impressive and fascinating and hifiish still but not as deeply compelling or authoritative as full scale music. Transparency is the unobscured and undiminished experience of the recorded sound and of the music.

Dynamics adds to the viscera… as does cohesion which heightens the sense of scale impact and power… if the system is capable of being truly transparent it allows the action and all the light and shade through… polite and in ways impressive but boxed in or restrained hifi ish sound can be like being interestingly slapped in the face by a sad soggy tissue.

 

[Al M.]

Stereophile glossary of terms:

transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary Glossary: T-U | Stereophile.com

T tail The reverberant decay of a sound in an acoustical space. taut In bass reproduction, under tight control of the electrical signal; detailed and free from "hangover." tempo The actual number of beats per minute in a musical performance. Compare "pace." texture, texturing A perceptible...

www.stereophile.com

You could argue that dynamics is part of that definition -- by definition .

 

[PeterA]

Stereophile glossary of terms:

transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary Glossary: T-U | Stereophile.com

T tail The reverberant decay of a sound in an acoustical space. taut In bass reproduction, under tight control of the electrical signal; detailed and free from "hangover." tempo The actual number of beats per minute in a musical performance. Compare "pace." texture, texturing A perceptible...

www.stereophile.com

You could argue that dynamics is part of that definition -- by definition .

Yes.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Stereophile glossary of terms:

transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.


You could argue that dynamics is part of that definition -- by definition .

Where do you read any opening for dynamics in this transparency definition you provide?

 

[Al M.]

Where do you read any opening for dynamics in this transparency definition you provide?

1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal.

Don't you see it? It's obvious.

 

[Ron Resnick]

1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal.

Don't you see it? It's obvious.

I do not see it at all. I'm seeing reproduction of sound without adulteration and listening through the electronics to the recording -- the clear window concept.

There's nothing about dynamics or any other sonic attribute.

 

[Al M.]

I do not see it at all. I'm seeing reproduction of sound without adulteration and listening through the electronics to the recording -- the clear window concept.

There's nothing about dynamics or any other sonic attribute.

How can you have a, quote, "impression of listening through the system to the original sounds" (emphasis added) without proper dynamics?

How can you have, quote, "freedom from veiling [...] which tends to obscure the signal" when there is no proper dynamics? The "signal" inherently has dynamics.

While dynamics is not explicitly mentioned in the statement, it is strongly implied.

 

[Ron Resnick]

How can you have a, quote, "impression of listening through the system to the original sounds" (emphasis added) without proper dynamics?

How can you have, quote, "freedom from veiling [...] which tends to obscure the signal" when there is no proper dynamics? The "signal" inherently has dynamics.

While dynamics is not explicitly mentioned in the statement, it is strongly implied.

I disagree. You are imposing those exogenous sonic elements onto the definition. The way you're looking at it, in addition to dynamics, you could graft many different sonic attributes onto the definition.

If you want to add dynamics and other sonic attributes into that mix, then you are no longer talking merely about transparency, but about a much broader concept of believability or realism or naturalness.

I hope you haven't been infected by Peter's confusion.

 

[PeterA]

I disagree. You are imposing those exogenous sonic elements onto the definition. The way you're looking at it, in addition to dynamics, you could graft many different sonic attributes onto the definition.

If you want to add dynamics and other sonic attributes into that mix, then you are no longer talking merely about transparency, but about a much broader concept of believability or realism or naturalness.

I hope you haven't been infected by Peter's confusion.

OK Ron, in your concept of transparency, what specific characteristics of the music come through in the presentation and what characteristics are omitted? Clearly, you do not think of transparency as holistic. So what is left out?

Tone, presence, dynamics, imaging. Which of those or any other attributes do you consider a transparent system to be a clear window onto?

 

[Ron Resnick]

OK Ron, in your concept of transparency, what specific characteristics of the music come through in the presentation and what characteristics are omitted? Clearly, you do not think of transparency as holistic. So what is left out?

Tone, presence, dynamics, imaging. Which of those or any other attributes do you consider a transparent system to be a clear window onto?

Hello Peter,

In my concept of transparency, transparency is agnostic as to characteristics of sound. That's why I don't think splicing in dynamics gets us anywhere.

I think of transparency as the crystal clear window concept: nothing obscuring or adulterating a crystal clear reproduction of the recorded sound.

 

[PeterA]

Hello Peter,

In my concept of transparency, transparency is agnostic as to characteristics of sound. That's why I don't think splicing in dynamics gets us anywhere.

I think of transparency as the crystal clear window concept: nothing obscuring or adulterating a crystal clear reproduction of the recorded sound.

OK, but in the earlier example that we were discussing, dynamics are truncated, so I don’t see how the system can be transparent. So something is obscuring a crystal clear reproduction of the recorded sound. You just proved my point. The the system cannot be transparent if the dynamics embedded in the recorded music are not coming through clearly.

The view through the window of the dynamic expression of the music is foggier than the rest of the stuff seen through the window. The window is not crystal clear.

My concept of transparency is that the window is crystal clear for the music in its entirety, all aspects and characteristics of the music and performance as perceived in the listening seat

 

[Ron Resnick]

OK, but in the earlier example that we were discussing, dynamics are truncated, so I don’t see how the system can be transparent.

I'm back to having to say that transparency and dynamics are two separate attributes.

So something is obscuring a crystal clear reproduction of the recorded sound.

Transparency is the absence of some adulteration or fuzziness or neutral density phenomenon. More or less dynamics does not obscure or cloud the window.

You just proved my point.

Obviously not.

The the system cannot be transparent if the dynamics embedded in the recorded music are not coming through clearly.

This again is mixing up two separate attributes.

The view through the window of the dynamic expression of the music is foggier than the rest of the stuff seen through the window. The window is not crystal clear.

Dynamics doesn't tell us how clear the window is.

My concept of transparency is that the window is crystal clear for the music in its entirety, all aspects and characteristics of the music and performance as perceived in the listening seat

Now you're just back to a re-characterized natural sound.

 

[jbrrp1]

Ron, it seems like you're using transparency as a wholistic impression, and others are trying to get at the pieces that underlie a presentation that affect the wholistic impact. Both seem valid to me.

 

[morricab]

Well, Acoustat was founded by Jim Strickland in 1974 he could learn from the experience of the old masters ... Their peak period was in the 80's and ceased production in the early 90's. (from diyaudio.com)

We say Acoustats don't arc only if we like the sound and accept the technical limitations of Acoustats and do not read forums like diyaudio.com - we find there long threads of people reporting problems on Acoustats and refurbishing/repairing them, describing the intrinsic problems. I respect and admire Acoustat - they were the people who developed the mixer concept also used by SoundLab and have read a lot about them, although I found them very colored and with poor stereo image for my taste - I can say that I watched a skilled technician repairing an old pair and long ago I have re-built a pair of ESL57.

Curiously Peter Walker knew how to make stators that do not arc. But he could not guess that thirty years later the glue used in his panels would fail and production would change to China ... I have read some Acoustat models had similar problems.

BTW, a good friend still uses a pair of ESL57 with the original never replaced panels and the old KT66 Quad tube amplifiers - I was the now regretful guy who sold him the amplifiers cheap decades ago ...

I owned three pairs, all original. The oldest were over 40 years old at the time and worked perfectly. The newest ones would be now 35 years old and worked perfectly fine.

As to arcing, well they don’t, even when the panel slaps the stators. They might break electrically or from panel material being over driven and stretched out, or some other abuse.

As to sound, the last generation Spectras solved both the imaging and transparency concerns. They were superior to all quads except 57s in transparency and imaged beautifully. If you don’t know what the Soectra technology was, I invite you to dig a bit and you will see it’s a good innovation and superior to panel curvature.

 

[PeterA]

I'm back to having to say that transparency and dynamics are two separate attributes.


Transparency is the absence of some adulteration or fuzziness or neutral density phenomenon. More or less dynamics does not obscure or cloud the window.

Obviously not.


This again is mixing up two separate attributes.


Dynamics doesn't tell us how clear the window is.


Now you're just back to a re-characterized natural sound.

You still have not answered my question as to what characteristics your window is transparent. What do you hear from that transparent system?