Taiko Audio SGM Extreme : the Crème de la Crème

[Steve williams]

How does neutral sound? Its a particular perceived distortion in the playback AND its exact opposite.

I know that sounds odd but essentially what its saying it that whenever one encounters what one thinks is a deviation from neutral....a neutral system will eventually play exactly the opposite, demonstrating that its not a system but rather a recording attribute. Essentially neutral is never being able to identify anything that’s present with every recording other than positive attributes like fast, rhythmic, musical, natural etc., enveloping etc.
You’ll always hear faults in replay....we’re playing recordings which aren’t perfect. A neutral system should typically not demonstrate weaknesses that show up and have an affect on every recording. There’s certainly no such thing as perfectly neutral as every system has its own unique identity.

If you would like a crash course on neutral (or natural sounding) you need to spend 3-5 days at DDK's boot camp where David espouses "above all else, the system must sound natural". It's like going to the desert to experience an epiphany and changed my way of listening after my mecca visit to his house

David would go so far and add that if something stands out where your brain is drawn to it such that all you concentrate on is the deeper bass or better highs etc, then you are being distracted by something colored or not natural (neutral)

 

[Steve williams]

It's in the nature of audiophiles that are commonly in between DIYers and the complete non - techies IMO. They just can't leave it alone (I am part of the they in some situations)

why, when Emile blatantly says the following....

The Extreme has been voiced around this fuse in what we consider to be neutral. Changing it obviously does have an impact on voicing.

 

[microstrip]

If you would like a crash course on neutral (or natural sounding) you need to spend 3-5 days at DDK's boot camp where David espouses "above all else, the system must sound natural". It's like going to the desert to experience an epiphany and changed my way of listening after my mecca visit to his house

David would go so far and add that if something stands out where your brain is drawn to it such that all you concentrate on is the deeper bass or better highs etc, then you are being distracted by something colored or not natural (neutral)

Steve,

IMHO you are using the very suspicious audio qualifier natural to define your neutral and then get a suspicious definition of neutral.

Although I am prepared to accept on historical aspects that natural sounding is very often associated to David preferences in WBF I also can't accept its use to define something as being neutral.

 

[dminches]

If you would like a crash course on neutral (or natural sounding) you need to spend 3-5 days at DDK's boot camp where David espouses "above all else, the system must sound natural". It's like going to the desert to experience an epiphany and changed my way of listening after my mecca visit to his house

David would go so far and add that if something stands out where your brain is drawn to it such that all you concentrate on is the deeper bass or better highs etc, then you are being distracted by something colored or not natural (neutral)

Steve, everything is relative and everyone hears things differently. What you call neutral I could call bright. What I call neutral you could call dull.

Do you think 2 people hear the same “neutral” sound the same? I don’t.

Just because someone says something is neutral doesn’t mean that it is. It is just how that person perceives it.

 

[Steve williams]

Steve,

IMHO you are using the very suspicious audio qualifier natural to define your neutral and then get a suspicious definition of neutral.

Although I am prepared to accept on historical aspects that natural sounding is very often associated to David preferences in WBF I also can't accept its use to define something as being neutral.

I agree completely

My point is, I prefer listening to a system which is free of coloration. Perhaps I was naive to state "neutral' rather than "natural" but IMO either way you look at it both words to me imply coloration

 

[Steve williams]

Steve, everything is relative and everyone hears things differently. What you call neutral I could call bright. What I call neutral you could call dull.

Do you think 2 people hear the same “neutral” sound the same? I don’t.

Just because someone says something is neutral doesn’t mean that it is. It is just how that person perceives it.

Yes , I agree completely. Would you also agree that if a system suggests better bass or better mids etc is suggesting that your brain is focused on an aspect of the music rather than the music in its entirety and most would say that is because there is color added.

I do agree with everything you say.....

My only point again is speaking now as an owner of the Extreme. IMO it will become a legend of its time. I've said enough about it before that people understand I am a convert from analog back to digital. The sound I hear out of the box was beyond anything I could ever imagine but if someone were to ask me what is it about the sound, I would have to say," better everything". Break in was said to be 1200 hours and as many have stated it continues to improve with time

Emile spent a few days with me and I am respectful of everything he says because I personally don't think I could make it better. I might be able to make it different but I couldn't make it better. His mind is beyond the mere guy like me. I don't want to change anything. For me.it's perfect

It's liking someone with a stradivarius saying he's going to remove the glue because present day glues are better

Sometimes you can't outsmart the master

I guess I see it one way and you guys see it the other, but after all at the end of the day, if you're tapping your toes and smiling then it's all good and that's what it's all about

 

[sbo6]

why, when Emile blatantly says the following....

For me, I would leave it alone especially if the designer said it's part of ensuring the best transparency and neutrality. However, please keep in mind that this is a cost - no object component. Most other components with more stringent budgets may benefit from better components.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Steve, are you going to use Extreme w the Intona USB? I believe Emile chose it because it's hugely "neutral". Like the fuse he chose.

I ask, because Intona is not universally loved, and by means not everyone will use Extreme with it.

 

[kennyb123]

why, when Emile blatantly says the following....

If it's necessary to retain the fuse that the Extreme was voiced with - wouldn't it be necessary to also use the same power cord and cabling that was used when it was voiced? And same supports, etc.

 

[Steve williams]

I guess it gets back to the old days when there were tone controls

As my good friend says," there's chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. You pay your money and you take your chances"

BTW, everything I use now has been carefully voiced to what I call natural. Also I have mentioned here many times as well that my system now is one component away from my end game and that arrives in the next few weeks
.
Sure I can do other things but I honestly have no further itches to scratch. I only want to listen to music. I have been in this hobby likely than most of you here are old.Over the years I cannot recall all of the countless pieces of gear and different speakers I have used to bring me to where I am now.I have done all the same experiments and asked all of the questions that the above posts were asked of me.I have been down most every rabbit hole that all of you are now having fun with. For me 2020 is not only about perfect vision but for me having the vision of what my end game system is. Nothing more. I plan on sitting back and listening to the music, all music. The kicker for me is that prior to my owning the Extreme I was very mindful of what format I was listening to, because in my system there were differences to hear. The Extreme however, for me at least has changed that. Everything sounds so darn good that it matters not what format I play. I love it all an have no plans in changing the voicing with a simple fuse. But as stated, and for obvious reasons, that's just my $0.02. Prior to the Extreme my listening was 90% analog and 10% digital. Presently it's total opposite at 90% digital

As to what USB cable I use, it has been mentioned here many times. For my ears they are going to bury me with these cables as I won't ever change

 

[the sound of Tao]

Steve,

IMHO you are using the very suspicious audio qualifier natural to define your neutral and then get a suspicious definition of neutral.

Although I am prepared to accept on historical aspects that natural sounding is very often associated to David preferences in WBF I also can't accept its use to define something as being neutral.

Micro I’d imagine the point of suspicion comes just if we try to be absolute about it.

If we take the word absolute and add it in front of neutral, natural or transparent and apply it in an across the board system context (including recordings and room) then these things can be essentially the same, ie an absolutely transparent system (aka unobtainium) can also be an absolutely neutral one and also an absolutely natural one.

But since there is no established absolute in these criteria we are always left with modifiers like essentially neutral, relatively transparent and sounding very natural.

I get what Steve is getting at with seeing symbiotic correlation between natural and neutrality but then when these are not absolutes they also then have a degree of differences in values and meanings... so it makes a lot of sense if we had a natural sounding source and then followed this with an essentially neutral range of components then we’d perhaps more likely end up with an essentially natural sounding system (ideally/maybe/hopefully depending on the room and how good the recordings are).

I (like many others here) use the sense of natural as a primary aim when changing the system as a basic compass for pointing the system more in the direction where ideally a concert grand sounds more like a concert grand (got in the ballpark for the first time with the Maggie 20.7s), a cello sounds essentially very much like cello (was easier on the Harbeth 40.2s) and a drum kit sounds (and feels) more like a drum kit (the pap horns lead me more towards this but clearly still not sufficiently there yet... probably have more of a shot at it after I build some OB subs).

For me the greatest value in a sense of things sounding more natural is that there is just much less work for the brain to process and identify what we are listening to. The more we have to synthesise a perception to connect it with the natural sound the harder our brains will have to work... so I’d bring flow in here also. If a system portrays sounds in very natural and quite transparent and sometimes almost real ways we can then just go with the flow of the music rather than spending a lot of energy translating what we hear into a more familiar real world context.

I’d suggest to be effective all these things don’t actually need to be absolutes, they just need to be essentially the fundamental perceived qualities of the system. There is a tipping point where the quality becomes an essential perception even if it can still become even more so. This is the problem for me with reviewing essentially on sonic parameters in change. If the sound of a change makes you happier then more so with the repeat of that change and the addiction to that change sets in and you end up with multiples of the same tweak and be it active or passive platforms, footers, dampeners or whatever if the more of the same is always viewed as good we eventually end up at imbalance. Natural sounding is the middle ground in all of this and allows us to hang in with the moderation of balance.

So when we get these qualities essentially coming through then a system can sound essentially natural even if not absolutely natural, and for me there isn’t anything at all suspicious that just clearly some systems portray sounds closer as we hear them in real life... simply obviously more natural and by virtue of dualisms therefore less synthetic sounding... and enough so as to be obvious even if not then utterly exact or absolutely and completely indistinguishable from the real.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I guess it gets back to the old days when there were tone controls

As my good friend says," there's chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. You pay your money and you take your chances"

BTW, everything I use now has been carefully voiced to what I call natural. Also I have mentioned here many times as well that my system now is one component away from my end game and that arrives in the next few weeks
.
Sure I can do other things but I honestly have no further itches to scratch. I only want to listen to music. I have been in this hobby likely than most of you here are old.Over the years I cannot recall all of the countless pieces of gear and different speakers I have used to bring me to where I am now.I have done all the same experiments and asked all of the questions that the above posts were asked of me.I have been down most every rabbit hole that all of you are now having fun with. For me 2020 is not only about perfect vision but for me having the vision of what my end game system is. Nothing more. I plan on sitting back and listening to the music, all music. The kicker for me is that prior to my owning the Extreme I was very mindful of what format I was listening to, because in my system there were differences to hear. The Extreme however, for me at least has changed that. Everything sounds so darn good that it matters not what format I play. I love it all an have no plans in changing the voicing with a simple fuse. But as stated, and for obvious reasons, that's just my $0.02. Prior to the Extreme my listening was 90% analog and 10% digital. Presently it's total opposite at 90% digital

As to what USB cable I use, it has been mentioned here many times. For my ears they are going to bury me with these cables as I won't ever change

But Steve, that's just my point. Emile has chosen the Intona, like he's chosen the fuse, for complete neutrality. If you're questioning guys for varying on a different fuse, you're equally guilty varying beyond the Intona.

Change fuse from Emile's choice. Change the USB from Emile's choice. Both decisions are a variance from the neutrality of Extreme presentation.

 

[Taiko Audio]

How many ampere does the Extreme take for the fuse?

2A @220-240V
4A @110-120V

 

[Steve williams]

But Steve, that's just my point. Emile has chosen the Intona, like he's chosen the fuse, for complete neutrality. If you're questioning guys for varying on a different fuse, you're equally guilty varying beyond the Intona.

Change fuse from Emile's choice. Change the USB from Emile's choice. Both decisions are a variance from the neutrality of Extreme presentation.

Read TAO's post above Marc. For me, I couldn't have said it better. Thanks TAO

so it makes a lot of sense if we had a natural sounding source and then followed this with an essentially neutral range of components then we’d perhaps more likely end up with an essentially natural sounding system (ideally/maybe/hopefully depending on the room and how good the recordings are).

 

[Taiko Audio]

IMHO audiophile fuses can affect reliability

Unfortunately true, I’ve come across a few which audibly deteriorate after just a few powercycles due to inrush current damage, even though the Extreme is softstarted. These can blow after just 10-20 power ons.

 

[microstrip]

2A @220-240V
4A @110-120V

Can we also know the timing characteristics, or even better, the brand and model? I do not want to power off my Extreme!

In case of problems, some audiophile fuses will break only after great damage to the power supply.

 

[microstrip]

Micro I’d imagine the point of suspicion comes just if we try to be absolute about it.

If we take the word absolute and add it in front of neutral, natural or transparent and apply it in an across the board system context (including recordings and room) then these things can be essentially the same, ie an absolutely transparent system (aka unobtainium) can also be an absolutely neutral one and also an absolutely natural one.

Although I agree on the absolute neutral and absolute transparent, I feel that there is no absolute natural at all in the high-end in our usual sense in WBF, as it is a preference, not a system parameter.

Stereo intrinsically needs the contribution of users to recreate a natural 3D illusion and this aspect is very subjective and listener dependent.

But since there is no established absolute in these criteria we are always left with modifiers like essentially neutral, relatively transparent and sounding very natural.

Here comes the subjective help to please everyone ...

I get what Steve is getting at with seeing symbiotic correlation between natural and neutrality but then when these are not absolutes they also then have a degree of differences in values and meanings... so it makes a lot of sense if we had a natural sounding source and then followed this with an essentially neutral range of components then we’d perhaps more likely end up with an essentially natural sounding system (ideally/maybe/hopefully depending on the room and how good the recordings are).

I (like many others here) use the sense of natural as a primary aim when changing the system as a basic compass for pointing the system more in the direction where ideally a concert grand sounds more like a concert grand (got in the ballpark for the first time with the Maggie 20.7s), a cello sounds essentially very much like cello (was easier on the Harbeth 40.2s) and a drum kit sounds (and feels) more like a drum kit (the pap horns lead me more towards this but clearly still not sufficiently there yet... probably have more of a shot at it after I build some OB subs).

For me the greatest value in a sense of things sounding more natural is that there is just much less work for the brain to process and identify what we are listening to. The more we have to synthesise a perception to connect it with the natural sound the harder our brains will have to work... so I’d bring flow in here also. If a system portrays sounds in very natural and quite transparent and sometimes almost real ways we can then just go with the flow of the music rather than spending a lot of energy translating what we hear into a more familiar real world context.

I’d suggest to be effective all these things don’t actually need to be absolutes, they just need to be essentially the fundamental perceived qualities of the system. There is a tipping point where the quality becomes an essential perception even if it can still become even more so. This is the problem for me with reviewing essentially on sonic parameters in change. If the sound of a change makes you happier then more so with the repeat of that change and the addiction to that change sets in and you end up with multiples of the same tweak and be it active or passive platforms, footers, dampeners or whatever if the more of the same is always viewed as good we eventually end up at imbalance. Natural sounding is the middle ground in all of this and allows us to hang in with the moderation of balance.

So when we get these qualities essentially coming through then a system can sound essentially natural even if not absolutely natural, and for me there isn’t anything at all suspicious that just clearly some systems portray sounds closer as we hear them in real life... simply obviously more natural and by virtue of dualisms therefore less synthetic sounding... and enough so as to be obvious even if not then utterly exact or absolutely and completely indistinguishable from the real.

Yes, this is the classical argument that less brain work more enjoyment. IMHO it ignores that stereo is a constant learning experience and people have different experiences and learn differently. Some people need a constant evolution to really enjoy the musical experience.
BTW, your conception of natural as the convergence point of our evolution has to face the fact that different people evolution is usually divergent and IMHO usually stops for reasons that are not connected to sonics but to desire to put an end in changes.

 

[microstrip]

But Steve, that's just my point. Emile has chosen the Intona, like he's chosen the fuse, for complete neutrality. If you're questioning guys for varying on a different fuse, you're equally guilty varying beyond the Intona.

Change fuse from Emile's choice. Change the USB from Emile's choice. Both decisions are a variance from the neutrality of Extreme presentation.

I think you are misrepresenting Emile points in your posts. Changing fuses can affect the reliability of the Extreme and surely the fuse choice was also tuned for the specific electrical noise of the Extreme power supply. As far as I see it Extreme users are comletely free to choose the USB cable, on my request Emile only advised me to pick the Intona as a first experience, I was never told that it was the "neutral" or best choice. Also IMHO different DACs will react very differently to USB cables.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Sure, just thought if Emile highlights and voices Extreme with a USB he labels as highly neutral, and uses a fuse he signifies as neutral, that they might be considered in the same way.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Although I agree on the absolute neutral and absolute transparent, I feel that there is no absolute natural at all in the high-end in our usual sense in WBF, as it is a preference, not a system parameter.

But if absolute transparency is valid (and as yet unachieved) as concept then by translation absolutely natural is also an equally valid potential concept... one logically leads to the other in that a perfectly transparent recording and playback system with acoustic instruments then that transparency of process essentially leads to the acoustic sounds then sounding just as they do in reality ie natural.

Stereo intrinsically needs the contribution of users to recreate a natural 3D illusion and this aspect is very subjective and listener dependent.

The stereo thing (like the whole idea of a stereo itself is built on a trick) but if the trick is indistinguishable from the real then that is then a transparent effect... a perfect deception will indeed lead to the perception of a completely natural sound.

Here comes the subjective help to please everyone ...

Not really, just working with the realistic limits set by the topic itself which is bound intrinsically by subjectivity and because simply there are no absolutes here and indeed everything about perception is inherently subjective.

All we can only do is try and set realistic benchmarks on where the tipping points in perception from something being experienced as essentially natural as opposed to essentially synthetic and that might just be a simple issue of a sense of apparent rightness in judgement and nothing any more complex than that.

Yes, this is the classical argument that less brain work more enjoyment. IMHO it ignores that stereo is a constant learning experience and people have different experiences and learn differently. Some people need a constant evolution to really enjoy the musical experience.

So how do you arrive at a supposition that learning is an essential, principle and direct aim of experiencing music... it’s surely a tangential outcome and not a direct one. It may be more likely (since music predates higher order awareness and highly developed language) that music creates change and connects more fundamentally in feelings rather than ideas which may then also (or not) be abstracted from the experience of feelings and sensations through the music... so awareness created from that change (learning) is another parallel outcome in a coexistent state of awareness. The direct aim of experiencing music can’t be locked down into any more context than just whatever we get out of experiencing music. Learning anything doesn’t seem to be always an outcome and for some it is an unimportant side issue. The best part of music is that about which naught can be said.

, your conception of natural as the convergence point of our evolution has to face the fact that different people evolution is usually divergent and IMHO usually stops for reasons that are not connected to sonics but to desire to put an end in changes.

I was saying natural was at the core of a compass in relating experience of fidelity in acoustic sounds... a limited reference and not at all exact, but a ballpark point at the axials of all the diverging poles away from the truth. Everyone chooses how to navigate differently but many use the essential sense that getting the acoustic instruments sounding fundamentally right as a completely valid way finding... no more than that. Micro I’d be surprised if you can’t listen to something with an archetypal sound say like an acoustic guitar and say whether what you are hearing sounds relatively natural or relatively synthetic but if you can’t that’s all good but plenty of people here seem to find no trouble in recognising a distinction like that. This isn’t about absolute exactness but rather close enough approximations in perceptions that require no noticeable effort to translate the nature of what is heard into its context