Ron’s New System

[Ron Resnick]

All fair enough, gentlemen. And I agree that Mike put it well.

But I just don't care. My interest in, and patience for, going down rabbit holes and ferreting out problems I don't presently hear is shallower than yours.

Each of us draws our own interest line, and our own cost/benefit line in terms of time and interest and patience. I enjoy comparing loudspeakers and line stages and cartridges and amplifiers. I give Marty infinite credit for having the interest and the patience to compare the sonic differences of cable connectors based on metallurgy. That just ain't me.

Putting it a bit more technically "low noise floor," a popular industry obsession for many manufacturers and many reviewers and many audiophiles, is not one of my sonic cues. So I don't have much interest in spending time or patience or money trying to lower my system's noise floor. If low noise floor were one of my sonic cues I would not use a tube phono stage, a tube line stage, and tube amplifiers with single-ended interconnects.

Now if somebody brought over some box and plugged it into the wall or plugged a component into it, and it gobstoppingly allowed me to believe more easily that Stevie Nicks is in the room singing to me, then I would be happy to buy it. But, absent a problem I actually hear, I'm not going to initiate those kinds of comparisons of grounding boxes and doo-dads on my own. It just doesn't interest me.

 

[Elliot G.]

All fair enough, gentlemen. And I agree that Mike put it well.

But I just don't care. My interest in, and patience for, going down rabbit holes and ferreting out problems I don't presently hear is shallower than yours.

Each of us draws our own interest line, and our own cost/benefit line in terms of time and interest and patience. I enjoy comparing loudspeakers and line stages and cartridges and amplifiers. I give Marty infinite credit for having the interest and the patience to compare the sonic differences of cable connectors based on metallurgy. That just ain't me.

Putting it a bit more technically "low noise floor," a popular industry obsession for many manufacturers and many reviewers and many audiophiles, is not one of my sonic cues. So I don't have much interest in spending time or patience or money trying to lower my system's noise floor. If low noise floor were one of my sonic cues I would not use a tube phono stage, a tube line stage, and tube amplifiers with single-ended interconnects.

Now if somebody brought over some box and plugged it into the wall or plugged a component into it, and it gobstoppingly allowed me to believe more easily that Stevie Nicks is in the room singing to me, then I would be happy to buy it. But, absent a problem I actually hear, I'm not going to initiate those kinds of comparisons of grounding boxes and doo-dads on my own. It just doesn't interest me.

Ron the truth is you do hear but you choose to solve the problem by throwing the baby out with the bath water. You are assuming that the difference you are hearing is totally the item rather than the item in the environment of you system. You are trying to repaint the picture with a color from a different crayon rather than address why that color is wrong in the first place.
How many amps are you going to buy to try to find the magic silver bullet that fixes everything that you don't like?
BTW I am not talking about just low noise floor. There are many other forms of noise and distortion, ones that do not occur until you actually play the gear.
Rabbit hole? perhaps I look at it as a reality control, continuing to refocus the lens, as everything continues to be more in focus and with more of the reality doo dad. Your technical term not mine LOL

 

[microstrip]

my viewpoint is that we don't know what we don't know. so the only way to understand cause and effect of noise is to test it by applying some sort of decoupling or isolation or EMF/RFI solution and........drum roll please.......LISTEN. you never recognize noise until it is gone or reduced. then it jumps out. you then realize it was never part of the music but something masking the music.

Yes, it is terrible. Although sometimes the music sounds better with some specific added noise. Some tweaks just add noise to mask something.

the separate room for sources approach might pass the 'eye' test and the intuition test, but the listening test is the only one that tells you what you don't know. but there are plenty of separate room for sources benefits which might trump the caveats. it's personal and no wrong way. and gear interaction on the shelf can be real. and should be considered.

one easy way to try it in any room is with headphones. if you can hear the results of isolation processes with headphones, those results resemble a separate room approach so that tells you you still benefit from that isolation process even with a separate room. but with big music depending on the whole structure of the home even a separate room does not completely eliminate the feedback problem. but feedback is only one aspect of noise.

Or the classic way for turntables in the 80's - we would record in tape the preamplifier output with music playing loud or muted. The differences were easily listenable with many turntables.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I didn't put those two together. Pseudo-balancing is using a balancing or unbalancing transformer in a natively single-ended circuit. (...)

I think you are confusing the information coming from our previous debates - pseudo-balancing is impedance matching transmission without inversion. Using transformers is surely true balancing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think you are confusing the information coming from our previous debates - pseudo-balancing is impedance matching transmission without inversion. Using transformers is surely true balancing.

Yes, thank you; I always forget this. I have trouble remembering that technically speaking using balancing transformers -- even without a true differential circuit -- is true balancing and not merely pseudo-balancing.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yes, it is terrible. Although sometimes the music sounds better with some specific added noise. Some tweaks just add noise to mask something.

you gotta listen. agree we can tamp down musical content or especially energy in the sake of lowering noise. the music can get too polite. these things need to be considered and tuned to be optimal.

Or the classic way for turntables in the 80's - we would record in tape the preamplifier output with music playing loud or muted. The differences were easily listenable with many turntables.

i never did much tape recording. however, in 2013 when i added my Herzan under my turntable sitting 6 feet from my MM7 bass towers it was a game changer. i expected better sonics but it was new ground. i had gone 6 months with my new speakers not connecting distortion on female vocal tracks with feedback. even sent some pressings back complaining of pressing quality. then 'poof' all that distortion was gone.

 

[marty]

I give Marty infinite credit for having the interest and the patience to compare the sonic differences of cable connectors based on metallurgy. That just ain't me.

Don't pay any attention to that guy. He's fkn nuts and needs to be medicated.....

 

[jbrrp1]

Don't pay any attention to that guy. He's fkn nuts and needs to be medicated.....

Beauty is, he can self-medicate, right?

 

[jbrrp1]

All fair enough, gentlemen. And I agree that Mike put it well.

But I just don't care. My interest in, and patience for, going down rabbit holes and ferreting out problems I don't presently hear is shallower than yours.

Each of us draws our own interest line, and our own cost/benefit line in terms of time and interest and patience. I enjoy comparing loudspeakers and line stages and cartridges and amplifiers. I give Marty infinite credit for having the interest and the patience to compare the sonic differences of cable connectors based on metallurgy. That just ain't me.

Putting it a bit more technically "low noise floor," a popular industry obsession for many manufacturers and many reviewers and many audiophiles, is not one of my sonic cues. So I don't have much interest in spending time or patience or money trying to lower my system's noise floor. If low noise floor were one of my sonic cues I would not use a tube phono stage, a tube line stage, and tube amplifiers with single-ended interconnects.

Now if somebody brought over some box and plugged it into the wall or plugged a component into it, and it gobstoppingly allowed me to believe more easily that Stevie Nicks is in the room singing to me, then I would be happy to buy it. But, absent a problem I actually hear, I'm not going to initiate those kinds of comparisons of grounding boxes and doo-dads on my own. It just doesn't interest me.

The rabbit holes can go pretty deep, so we do all need to choose our cutoff point, and it is silly to argue to others about theirs.

Your noting about the believability, though, does make me think you just might enjoy the benefits that a great grounding scheme can add. I tried the Tripoint Troy latest with filters recently, and the amount of musically meaningful information it brought was greater than moving to an excellent preamp, IME/system. I've become a "mini-Audiocrack" on Tripoint as a result, because the element of timbral development, palpable presence, and venue sense is so much better with just this grounding application. There's a lot more to "noise floor" than quieter; there's importantly lower distortion, which hits very squarely in the areas you highlight as important. Just an FYI.

 

[microstrip]

(...) But I just don't care. My interest in, and patience for, going down rabbit holes and ferreting out problems I don't presently hear is shallower than yours.

Well , this is intrinsically an hobby of rabbit holes ... Audio without rabbit holes is discussed in another forum that I will not nominate.

Each of us draws our own interest line, and our own cost/benefit line in terms of time and interest and patience. I enjoy comparing loudspeakers and line stages and cartridges and amplifiers. I give Marty infinite credit for having the interest and the patience to compare the sonic differences of cable connectors based on metallurgy. That just ain't me.

Yes, each of us has his favorite rabbit holes ... But it an holistic hobby, ignoring all other rabbit holes can be dangerous.

Putting it a bit more technically "low noise floor," a popular industry obsession for many manufacturers and many reviewers and many audiophiles, is not one of my sonic cues. So I don't have much interest in spending time or patience or money trying to lower my system's noise floor. If low noise floor were one of my sonic cues I would not use a tube phono stage, a tube line stage, and tube amplifiers with single-ended interconnects.

Noise floor is not intrinsically a "cue", but it affects many sonic cues. Low noise floor is not signal to noise ratio, that is specified only in the audio band. I think your issue with others "obsession" is mostly due to a semantics misunderstanding and the abusive use of the words "low noise floor" by marketing and just a few people. Most use it properly.

Now if somebody brought over some box and plugged it into the wall or plugged a component into it, and it gobstoppingly allowed me to believe more easily that Stevie Nicks is in the room singing to me, then I would be happy to buy it. But, absent a problem I actually hear, I'm not going to initiate those kinds of comparisons of grounding boxes and doo-dads on my own. It just doesn't interest me.

Well, did any of your system changes "gobstoppingly allowed you to believe more easily that Stevie Nicks is in the room singing to you? "

IMO each of us should follow a line of action that brings him enjoyment. In my case time, logistics and money are strong boundaries in this crazy hobby. And yes, "I never walk into a place I don't know how to walk out of" in the words of Robert de Niro.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well, did any of your system changes "gobstoppingly allowed you to believe more easily that Stevie Nicks is in the room singing to you? "

If I tone down the hyperbolic adjective of gobstopping, yes, several system changes are what I would describe as "material." By material I mean that the time and effort and expense to achieve the change was worth it to me in terms of sonic result.

The Mastersound PF100s give me a purity and a breath of life and natural resolution that I don't hear from the Jadis. The Jadis is satisfying and extremely easy to listen to, but it doesn't sound as professional somehow. Professional is a weird word, I know. The bottom line is that I don't want to lose the greater suspension of disbelief the PF100s are now giving me.

But the PF100s -- being PSET and zero negative feedback -- clip earlier than the JA100s.

 

[LL21]

The rabbit holes can go pretty deep, so we do all need to choose our cutoff point, and it is silly to argue to others about theirs.

Your noting about the believability, though, does make me think you just might enjoy the benefits that a great grounding scheme can add. I tried the Tripoint Troy latest with filters recently, and the amount of musically meaningful information it brought was greater than moving to an excellent preamp, IME/system. I've become a "mini-Audiocrack" on Tripoint as a result, because the element of timbral development, palpable presence, and venue sense is so much better with just this grounding application. There's a lot more to "noise floor" than quieter; there's importantly lower distortion, which hits very squarely in the areas you highlight as important. Just an FYI.

Ron the truth is you do hear but you choose to solve the problem by throwing the baby out with the bath water. You are assuming that the difference you are hearing is totally the item rather than the item in the environment of you system. You are trying to repaint the picture with a color from a different crayon rather than address why that color is wrong in the first place.
How many amps are you going to buy to try to find the magic silver bullet that fixes everything that you don't like?
BTW I am not talking about just low noise floor. There are many other forms of noise and distortion, ones that do not occur until you actually play the gear.
Rabbit hole? perhaps I look at it as a reality control, continuing to refocus the lens, as everything continues to be more in focus and with more of the reality doo dad. Your technical term not mine LOL

I have to say that I absolutely respect that Ron does not wish to go down the rabbit hole. Its like me and saying while I hear that panels can be more 'of a whole' than a number of multi-driver cones, it does not really rise to being an issue for me...my priorities are in far different domains in terms of what I look for/care about in my sound.

That said, for myself, I totally agree with both of these posts. I absolutely agree with Elliot that 'noise' has many many kinds and lower noise floor is not necessarily about no tubes...I found tremendous benefit in lowering noise in the system...while I had Zanden and CJ tubes in the system ( and still have Zanden now). And the benefits came from Tripoint as Jbrrp1 says (I also like Entreq which I use as well)...and the noise that disappeared was not at all the noise that comes from tubes.

I liken it to when we all were so happy watching movies on VHS and never 'noticed' how stupidly grainy the video was...but now if you are watching even a DVD (let alone a Blu-ray/hi-res)...going back to VHS is a joke. It is SO GRAINY, you cannot bear to watch it!

 

[Elliot G.]

I have to say that I absolutely respect that Ron does not wish to go down the rabbit hole. Its like me and saying while I hear that panels can be more 'of a whole' than a number of multi-driver cones, it does not really rise to being an issue for me...my priorities are in far different domains in terms of what I look for/care about in my sound.

That said, for myself, I totally agree with both of these posts. I absolutely agree with Elliot that 'noise' has many many kinds and lower noise floor is not necessarily about no tubes...I found tremendous benefit in lowering noise in the system...while I had Zanden and CJ tubes in the system ( and still have Zanden now). And the benefits came from Tripoint as Jbrrp1 says (I also like Entreq which I use as well)...and the noise that disappeared was not at all the noise that comes from tubes.

I liken it to when we all were so happy watching movies on VHS and never 'noticed' how stupidly grainy the video was...but now if you are watching even a DVD (let alone a Blu-ray/hi-res)...going back to VHS is a joke. It is SO GRAINY, you cannot bear to watch it!

You are on the right road however I think you are still in the wrong lane. Noise is different for different things. There is mechanical noise, there is electrical noise, there is grounding noise, their is analog noise, there is digital noise , there is ethernet noise, there is musical intermodulation noise. Some noise maybe common for all sources and gear, some is definitely not
When you have a specific source for example you would go about treating Analog very differently than digital or at least there are different sources of noise for each. I am not down a rabbit hole I am only working within the confines of what I have. I am using the tools presented to me and to be honest I am not going to do comparisons of all the grounding products for example to see if one is better than the other. I am a believer in work, I am a believer in working to get the small things right, mostly after getting the big things in place.
Meaning pick your gear , by the means you must, as this is an impossible to subject to analyze and that's a rabbit hole I will avoid like COVID.
However once you have selected what you want , working to get it to perform correctly , rather than changing it to solve unsolved issues , to me makes much more sense. These different technologies and concepts are different and need to be addressed differently. For example a panel speaker works differently than the ones you have. One can argue forever which is better but that is not this issue, the issue now is how to maximize the choice.
I used to buy golf clubs by reading the bull crap and thinking that this would make me better. I finally found out that being fitted for me works far better than expecting to get gobsmacked by buying the latest crap from Taylor Made or Callaway or Titleist etc.

 

[LL21]

You are on the right road however I think you are still in the wrong lane. Noise is different for different things. There is mechanical noise, there is electrical noise, there is grounding noise, their is analog noise, there is digital noise , there is ethernet noise, there is musical intermodulation noise. Some noise maybe common for all sources and gear, some is definitely not
When you have a specific source for example you would go about treating Analog very differently than digital or at least there are different sources of noise for each. I am not down a rabbit hole I am only working within the confines of what I have. I am using the tools presented to me and to be honest I am not going to do comparisons of all the grounding products for example to see if one is better than the other. I am a believer in work, I am a believer in working to get the small things right, mostly after getting the big things in place.
Meaning pick your gear , by the means you must, as this is an impossible to subject to analyze and that's a rabbit hole I will avoid like COVID.
However once you have selected what you want , working to get it to perform correctly , rather than changing it to solve unsolved issues , to me makes much more sense. These different technologies and concepts are different and need to be addressed differently. For example a panel speaker works differently than the ones you have. One can argue forever which is better but that is not this issue, the issue now is how to maximize the choice.
I used to buy golf clubs by reading the bull crap and thinking that this would make me better. I finally found out that being fitted for me works far better than expecting to get gobsmacked by buying the latest crap from Taylor Made or Callaway or Titleist etc.

Thank you and helpful. I have no doubt that really focusing on the ideal implementation/setup of each component must be right. In my case, I think I have been pretty loyal to the components I like (Wilsons for 15+ years, Zanden for 15+ years and Class A SS state for 15+ years with only a recent change away from CJ/Gryphon to all Robert Koda).

And I have to say, getting to know each component (each one differently mechanically isolated, different grounded) has been a journey which continues to bring forward more of what (I believe) to have been part of the original design of the component...in particularly the Zanden which has been by far the most steady companion all these years.

That said, I dont have professional experience nor technical knowledge, and I have learned from others along the way. Including reading posts like yours which continue to open the envelope of experience and opportunities to learn.

 

[Elliot G.]

Thank you and helpful. I have no doubt that really focusing on the ideal implementation/setup of each component must be right. In my case, I think I have been pretty loyal to the components I like (Wilsons for 15+ years, Zanden for 15+ years and Class A SS state for 15+ years with only a recent change away from CJ/Gryphon to all Robert Koda).

And I have to say, getting to know each component (each one differently mechanically isolated, different grounded) has been a journey which continues to bring forward more of what (I believe) to have been part of the original design of the component...in particularly the Zanden which has been by far the most steady companion all these years.

That said, I dont have professional experience nor technical knowledge, and I have learned from others along the way. Including reading posts like yours which continue to open the envelope of experience and opportunities to learn.

You have good gear and then the secret is to maximize its potential and performance as we are all students and are constantly learning. People only want to see that the new gizmo is this and that and never what needs to be done before to evaluate , calibrate and maximize its attributes

 

[LL21]

You have good gear and then the secret is to maximize its potential and performance as we are all students and are constantly learning. People only want to see that the new gizmo is this and that and never what needs to be done before to evaluate , calibrate and maximize its attributes

Very fair assessment.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i think tweaks and various non signal path tools are part of system ultimate end-game building. although some suggest to ignore those things although mostly they use some anyway.

but it's most important to start with the basics right, chose the right major pieces, and if we switch in too many tweaks early on it can blur the basics of assessment. is the room symmetrical? source linear? electronics solid and cohesive? speakers cohesive and appropriate for the room? A/C grid headroom and sorted? outside noise eliminated? solid floor? speaker set up and listening position dialed?

if any of these are wanting and tweaks are used to 'fix it' then what do your have? mostly you are down a rat hole with no escape. one thing to move the problem here, another to move it there.

OTOH if the system is mature and sorted, then tweaks can push the ceiling higher and higher. and i've been a tweak believer big time over the years.

 

[LL21]

i think tweaks and various non signal path tools are part of system ultimate end-game building. although some suggest to ignore those things although mostly they use some anyway.

but it's most important to start with the basics right, chose the right major pieces, and if we switch in too many tweaks early on it can blur the basics of assessment. is the room symmetrical? source linear? electronics solid and cohesive? speakers cohesive and appropriate for the room? A/C grid headroom and sorted? outside noise eliminated? solid floor? speaker set up and listening position dialed?

if any of these are wanting and tweaks are used to 'fix it' then what do your have? mostly you are down a rat hole with no escape. one thing to move the problem here, another to move it there.

OTOH if the system is mature and sorted, then tweaks can push the ceiling higher and higher. and i've been a tweak believer big time over the years.

100%. I am not saying by the way I have actually done this. I just agree with what you say and have aspired to do this. Buy good solid components, ensure they work well together, are set up well within the room...thank you, Absolute Sounds UK on dialing in the Wilsons and setting up the Velodyne in parallel for us...and then hone from there.

 

[Holmz]

my viewpoint is that we don't know what we don't know. so the only way to understand cause and effect of noise is to test it by applying some sort of decoupling or isolation or EMF/RFI solution and........drum roll please.......LISTEN. you never recognize noise until it is gone or reduced. then it jumps out. you then realize it was never part of the music but something masking the music.
…

Well there are 5 senses. We can eliminate taste and touch, and if there is a smell then it’s a bit too late.
So the other way one could glean “insight”, would be with something like an o-scope.
Since we can only hear up to some frequency defined in kHz, then it is difficult to find noise up towards MHz without using the eyes.

One can either just see it go down.
Or they could see where it is, and that may give some insight into what it is, and the mechanism for how it is getting in.

However if one is not hearing anything to begin with, then it is either FOMO driven, or there is some desire to see if anything is there, and seeing if the noise can be pushed down from more of an intellectual perspective, rather than a FOMO perspective.

 

[PeterA]

The Mastersound PF100s give me a purity and a breath of life and natural resolution that I don't hear from the Jadis. The Jadis is satisfying and extremely easy to listen to, but it doesn't sound as professional somehow. Professional is a weird word, I know. The bottom line is that I don't want to lose the greater suspension of disbelief the PF100s are now giving me.

Ron, what do you mean by “natural resolution”?