Guys with good recordings, who believe in listening to the recordings and not having a consistent color, i.e those who consciously set up for this an objective, rather than saying "my gear is transparent"... During your journey, what changes led to more of this difference, and what made the recordings sound more consistent across labels and pressings?
Fidelity to source analog guys
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
Ked, I thought it was a given that our first systems reflect biases, and we move onwards twds more neutral transparent presentations.
Yes but I want to understand what you changed where you said damn, that previous thing A was so colored to this thing B. So B actually made a big impact in letting me understand recordings
Ked, it just happens. You listen to more music, more live gigs, learn the moral of tonal discrimination btwn recordings, and the power of room acoustics. And evolve.
So some value hyper detail, some imaging/soundstage, some tonal and timbral authenticity, some bass power, etc etc, and move to max preferences out.
For me the revelation on room acoustics, and live unamplified exposure is pushing me twds a priority on tone and timbre, and a move to horns.
So some value hyper detail, some imaging/soundstage, some tonal and timbral authenticity, some bass power, etc etc, and move to max preferences out.
For me the revelation on room acoustics, and live unamplified exposure is pushing me twds a priority on tone and timbre, and a move to horns.
Sentence one seems to refer to those whose aim is a less homogenized sound, that is, those who aim for a sound that comes off the record and is less influenced by system added color. That would be a more transparent system in my vocabulary - a system transparent to the source - a system where each record sounds more different from, than similar to, other records.
Sentence two seems to ask what leads to less homogenization and what leads to more.
If we grant that the notion of objective sonic (perceived) neutrality is false, then the issue seems to be about what causes differences and what doesn't relative to each individual's relative idealization of and preference for neutrality or not. Do you think there will be any commonality across answers? Is it all that difficult to make a system sound different - I wouldn't think so. Aren't you simply asking "what makes you like what you like?"
Interesting question, Ked, but I think my response may seem pretty obvious. The three changes that have moved my system in a direction of increased transparency to the recording have been upgrades to my speakers and source and proper set up.
1. Magico Mini 2 to Q3
2. SME Model 10A to Model 30/12A
3. Proper set up, both of speaker and listener within the room, and cartridge/tonearm.
Both changes led to a more neutral tonal balance, more extension, less coloration - all attributes which allow me to hear more of what is on the recording and to distinguish between differences. The source increased the amount of information retrieval, and the speakers presented that increased information is a less distorted and more complete way.
What made recordings sound more consistent or similar to each other? Lack of room treatment, poor speaker/listening seat position, less precise cartridge/arm set up, some cables and power cords, lower level cartridges, LPs before they were properly cleaned.
I understand the point that Tima is making. However, I think the three changes I mention above are more objective than subject because visitors have made the same observations about the changes. IOW, I think most people would agree that those three changes moved the system toward transparency to the recording.
1. Magico Mini 2 to Q3
2. SME Model 10A to Model 30/12A
3. Proper set up, both of speaker and listener within the room, and cartridge/tonearm.
Both changes led to a more neutral tonal balance, more extension, less coloration - all attributes which allow me to hear more of what is on the recording and to distinguish between differences. The source increased the amount of information retrieval, and the speakers presented that increased information is a less distorted and more complete way.
What made recordings sound more consistent or similar to each other? Lack of room treatment, poor speaker/listening seat position, less precise cartridge/arm set up, some cables and power cords, lower level cartridges, LPs before they were properly cleaned.
I understand the point that Tima is making. However, I think the three changes I mention above are more objective than subject because visitors have made the same observations about the changes. IOW, I think most people would agree that those three changes moved the system toward transparency to the recording.
Last edited:
Hi Tima, there will be some who set out with an objective of good mids, or good soundstage, or bass, or a mix. Some will simply say, I want to hear what's on the recording... If it has a particular soundstage, I want to hear that. I am looking for the latter. For this, the person needs to know about recordings. Given that many don't have a focus on Decca, RCA, EMI, and other labels and listening to what's on the recording, the number of people should be quite low. Moreover, there will be some who, while having that objective, did not (like with all objectives) achieve it right away, and a change in equipment from A to B helped in the direction.
As you know, we have debated, do you like to recreate the sound of a live eventt, or do you like to hear what's on the recording. If you have good recordings, and you let the system display what's on them, you achieve the objective of creating a sound closer to the live event.
As you know, we have debated, do you like to recreate the sound of a live eventt, or do you like to hear what's on the recording. If you have good recordings, and you let the system display what's on them, you achieve the objective of creating a sound closer to the live event.
are you contrasting what made more of a difference with what made things sound more consistent? that is not clear.
i could see a very transparent system showing differences between recordings, by being consistent at revealing all the information. that is my approach.
but i could also see your 'consistent' comment referring to 'sameness' across all recordings. which personally i reject.
i'll refer to a couple of threads i started from the last couple years.
i had the Golden Gate 1.5, and compared it to the Nagra HD dac with power supply, and the Aqua Formula dac. i found that i liked the Nagra HD dac alot, and really was attracted to it's 'liquid' presentation. but after listening to the Formula dac and then the GG again, the 'liquidity' of the Nagra seemed to be a 'sameness' over all the music.
i bought the Lamm ML3 and borrowed the big VAC Statements. compared them both to the darTZeel 458's in my system. loved all three amps. but the tube sound, when compared to the transparency of the big darts, got in the way of the musical message to my ears and imparted a degree of sameness to things.......as lovely as it was.
along these lines; taming my room a few years back by wall treatments, and solving my bass suckout issue, which unlocked the magic in many recordings and revealed their potential, to me was the single largest step i've taken to transparency. i could point to various gear choices as also being significant, but honestly the room getting out of the way was the big deal. it was the quantum leap for me. after that lots of gear would have been effective at attaining transparency. and it allowed the largest scale music to be more listenable which allowed me to become more able to understand them and the individual recordings attributes.
when the room is in the way, anything you do has limited effectiveness as the distortion is in the way of the full picture.
secondarily, i would have to go back to my 2001 transition from 'hifi' sound of Mark Levinson amp and preamp + Wilson WP6's to the purity of Tenor OTL integrated tubes + Kharma Exquisite 1D's where i realized that coherency and transparency would bring me closer to the music. my current darTZeel-Evolution Acoustics direction is still in line with those lessons learned now 17 years ago. that step did allow for each recording to be more on it's own merits as the musical nuance and magic came through less restricted.
The consistent comment refers to sameness across recordings, which is boring.
Thanks. I can relate to your last para and Nagra and Wilson well. Good to have your confirmation that the tenor OTL is not colored on recordings.
Thanks. I can relate to your last para and Nagra and Wilson well. Good to have your confirmation that the tenor OTL is not colored on recordings.
Nice post, Mike. The room and proper set up within the room are critical factors. These are often the most difficult to get right, so we end up chasing different gear in the hopes that something new will bring satisfaction. It is easier that way, but can lead to much frustration and sideways movement.
Your switch from a "hifi" sound to one that is more about the purity of real music, sounds like an epiphany of sorts. Such realizations seem rare, but when experienced can have a profound effect on how one moves from that point onward. I had an experience like that about ten years ago when I heard a system at a dealership. For the first time, I was hearing a system that reminded me of the sound of real music. That opened my eyes and got me excited about the hobby.
so true. and i'm the poster boy for how difficult it is to get the room right. i spent a fortune building a dedicated room, and it still took me 10 years to figure it out.
another point about the room set-up is that it helps us to make the best possible gear choices.....since we then hear what the gear can actually do.
i think sometimes, people choose tubes to solve room listen-ability issues. taming a room to allow the music to sound natural might be much more daunting than simply choosing tubes. not saying that is typical, but i think it happens more than we think.
it was an epiphany for me. it changed my view on what was important in my system building. a sense of what is true progress.
and this hobby is all about whatever your reference is. my reference changed as to where i was going. there have been a few times i've lost my reference to a degree......my sense of exactly what i was trying to achieve. i think that's ok and bound to happen over a multi-decade hobby. but then you hear something that grabs you and you are off to find it in your own system.
75. But yes, 15 and 35 were the other models. I heard the 75 only once and fell in love, and without an analog source. Don't buy though, they might blow up and take your tweeter with them
Well there are three examples come to my mind from my personal experience, and these are not directly related to recordings but end up in the same alley I guess.
I have changed the coupling caps in my s.e.t. monoblocks to Duelund cast and I could hear more difference with vacuum tube changes from on brand or model to another.
The second one was the tonearm. When I upgraded to Kuzma 4 point, it made me hear the difference of the carts much more.
Third one was redoing my room based on measurements and treating physically problematic aspects of my room. When I had even control on room decay across the audio band, everything became more clear. This does not mean rise in detail. I mean everything became clear and in front of me. Any fault, any change in any component, recording etc. became much more audible.
These translate to me as a rise in transparency.
I have changed the coupling caps in my s.e.t. monoblocks to Duelund cast and I could hear more difference with vacuum tube changes from on brand or model to another.
The second one was the tonearm. When I upgraded to Kuzma 4 point, it made me hear the difference of the carts much more.
Third one was redoing my room based on measurements and treating physically problematic aspects of my room. When I had even control on room decay across the audio band, everything became more clear. This does not mean rise in detail. I mean everything became clear and in front of me. Any fault, any change in any component, recording etc. became much more audible.
These translate to me as a rise in transparency.
Yes, I know of their problems. Heard them several times with AP Calderas. I don't know if they were colorless but definitely appealing with a purity of sound that kinda reminded me of the Quicksilver 8417s. Excellent top end.
Aren't all transformers colored?
Maybe I should have used the word homogenized instead of colored. Btw they are OTL. I will type later. Taking off. Over the next month exploring Soulution.
Last edited:
This is speculation until I hear it with my own ears, but I am pretty certain this is correct. I am confident that switching from VPI TNT Mark IV with Benz Micro Ruby 2 and VTL MB-750s to American Sound AS-2000 with Air Tight Opus 1 and Siegfried IIs will impart less of a warm and homogenizing character across different recordings, and will be more neutral, and, depending on how you define transparency, will be more transparent overall.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |