Zero Distortion: Visit to Rhapsody Dallas

[Audiocrack]

For this kind of comparison amplifier should be biased each time you switched tubes. Biasing is difficult on some amps especially when you have to take the bottom cover off. If you skip biasing it won't be fair test.

I heard Elrog 211 tubes about 10 years ago and they sounded like transistor to me. I don't know how they sound now, probably improved..

Biassing the (very heavy) Kagura’s is (indeed) no fun at all. However I totally agree with you: when changing the 211 valves you have to adjust the bias in order to maximize the performance of the new 211 valves.

 

[Carlos269]

Yes, huge improvement( however, call it what you will, you are manipulating the original signal in a way that can’t be compared with othe systems. So, either the recording leaves something to be desired or your digital source does but you have brought sounds up out of the mix, made the bass have more texture and less boom and selectively boosted dynamics to make the recording sound more alive.

As you made no (I am assuming) changes to the physical system other than adding some mastering boxes to the chain, I think we need to say that you effectively remastered the recording but in a non-transferable manner.

i will add that without the remastering this does not sound very good. Veiled and boomy.

Thank you Brad. Glad that you noticed the improvements brought about by my “system” Remastering process on my WAAR system. I agree with your assessment that the result sound sounds more “live”. It sounds exactly like I want my WAAR system to sound because I dialed in the sound that I want. Few things to cover:

1) The remastering techniques and settings that I used to remastered the WAAR system are not appropriate to master any recording as the recording itself would sound terrible. These changes were made to address the system’s overall presentation.

2) The “Remastering” has not been changed since implemented and every recording played goes through the exact process. Please keep in my that the process is “dynamic” in nature so every recording is treated differently by the process depending on its spectral content.

3) If my aim was to remaster each track in the traditional way of remastering music, I would have proceeded in a different way and implemented different tools. The analog hardware tools selected for implementation in the WAAR systems were selected based on the changes that I wanted to bring about in my WAAR system’s overall sound; think of this as doing a critical evaluation of one’s own reference system and asking yourself if I could change or improve anything what would it be? And then gathering the tools to make those specific changes without compromising anything else in the process. That is what I have been able to achieve with the Remastering of my WAAR reference system.

4) If I were to design, develop and implement a Remastering process for another system, I would select the appropriate tools based on the system’s/owner’s needs. In other words the Remastering process could be unique for each system, but the tools allow for an ample range of adjustment.

I cannot take all the credit for the final sound unless I also implement the digital portion, which I have done in my mastering setups, but with the WAAR system I ldid the digital in HQPLAYER.

What I have developed is a very powerful concept and a way to short circuit the upgrade merry-go-round and trial and error approach of the traditional audiophile method. With my solution, you just simply dial in the sound that you want or that you are after; should that sound target change in the future, you just simply change the settings.

Glad that you noticed the differences.

 

[Rhapsody]

I didn't read anything on the Bayz speakers. They were in one picture. What's up with those?

We have to move the Alsyvox to play the Bayz Counterpoint in that particular room. 94db efficient, omni.

 

[Carlos269]

They are quite different but to compare with completely different music and further it has been manipulated is not a fair comparison.

To clarify, the sound of the “system” has been adjusted. Need to keep this in mind as this is where the power of the “Remastering” process is. It changes the sound of the “system”. What I have done is no different than what you would hope to achieve when you upgrade to a new component or speakers;, except that with my approach it takes out the unpredictability of the outcome of the “upgrade” it wipes the trial and error aspect of it. To clarify again, it is not remastering of the recordings, those source recordings are the same and stay the same, streamed from Tidal, and played back through my “system” just like everybody else does.

Just for clarity, the DHT/SET system was without your remastering, correct? I can now understand why you felt the need to remaster that for your big system. That being said, other than bass power, the DHT SET system still sounds much better. A bit strained at times but presence, tonality, texture dynamics and flow all superior to the WAAR system with remastering. Strings especially I thought, the WAAR has a bit of stridency that I think is inherent in the planar design (I have BG drivers in a system at home) that can’t be mastered out.
You did close the gap significantly (the original through the WAAR is not really good), but didn’t quite capture the essence. Putting some high power SETs on the ribbons maybe??

Brad, I agree that my various DHT/SET systems sound fantastic and are world class. Having said that, my WAAR reference system now sounds exactly like “I” want it to sound. My big WAAR reference system can do things my DHT/SET simply cannot do. I listen to some very extreme and demanding music that it is more suitable for my WAAR system than for my DHT/SET systems. I would kill those precious full range drivers if I played Unit:187 through them.

I love all my special audio components & specialty gear but I love my music more and I don’t want to ever be constrained in what I can listen to.

 

[Rhapsody]

To clarify, the sound of the “system” has been adjusted. Need to keep this in mind as this is where the power of the “Remastering” process is. It changes the sound of the “system”. What I have done is no different than what you would hope to achieve when you upgrade to a new component or speakers;, except that with my approach it takes out the unpredictability of the outcome of the “upgrade” it wipes the trial and error aspect of it. To clarify again, it is not remastering of the recordings, those source recordings are the same, streamed from Tidal, and played back through my “system” just everybody else does.




Brad, I agree that my DHT/SET system sound fantastic and are world class. Having said that, my WAAR reference system no sounds exactly like “I” want it to sound. My big WAAR reference system can do things my DHT/SET simply cannot do. I listen to some very extreme and demanding music that it is more suitable for my WAAR system than for my DHT/SET systems. I would kill those precious full range drivers if I played Unit:187 through them.

I love all my special audio components & specialty gear but I love my music more and I don’t want to ever be constrained in what I can listen to.

Carlos, your 40 systems and the WAAR system sound very interesting. You might want to start a thread on it all. This thread WAS about Ked's visit to the new Rhapsody Dallas showroom.

 

[morricab]

Thank you Brad. Glad that you noticed the improvements brought about by my “system” Remastering process on my WAAR system. I agree with your assessment that the result sound sound more “live”. It sounds exactly like I want my WAAR system to sound because I dialed in the sound that I want. Few things to cover:

1) The remastering techniques and settings that I used to remastered the WAAR system are not appropriate to o master any recording as the recording itself would sound terrible. These changes were made to address the system’s overall presentation.

2) The “Remastering” has not been changed since implemented and every recording played gos through the exact process. Please keep in my that the process is “dynamic” in nature so every recording is treated differently by the process depending on its spectral content.

3) if my aim was to remaster each track in the traditional way of remastering music, I would have proceeded in a different way and implemented different tools. He analog hardware tools selected for implementation in the WAAR systems were selected based on the changes that I wanted to bring about in my WAAR system overall sound; think of this as doing a critical evaluation of one’s own reference system and asking yourself if I could change or improve anything what would it be? And then gathering the tools to make those specific changes without compromising anything else in the process. That is what I have been able to achieve with the Remastering of my WAAR reference system.

4) If I were to design, develop and implement a Remastering process for another system, I would select the appropriate tools based on the system’s/owner’s need. In other words the Remastering process could be unique for each system, but the he tools allow for an ample range of adjustment.

I cannot take all the credit for the final sound unless I also implement the digital portion, which I have done in my mastering setups, but with the WAAR system Leif the digital in HQPLAYER.

What I have developed is a very powerful concept and way to short circuit the upgrade merry-go-round and trial and error approach ouch of the traditional audiophile method. With my solution, you just simply dial in the sound that you want or that you are after; should that sound target change in the future, you just simply change the settings.

Glad hat you noticed the difference.

Just some thoughts:

1) You are mastering the recording but it is a system specific mastering, which means it would not be generally appropriate.
2) I understand what you are saying. The tools are acting in a consistent way but given the difference in spectral content of each recording the actual amount of processing is changing from recording to recording.
3) Understood. However, you are then admitting that the system has particular limitations that need corrective tools to rectify. I am ok with that admission as no system does it all perfectly. I am assuming you are still able to get maximum contrast between the quality of recordings? It doesn't render them all "perfect" and thereby imposing it's own coloration.
4) So, you are saying that with a different system you would actually chosen different analog profi hardware to do the "remastering"?? Why wouldn't the tools you used on the WAAR be sufficient?

 

[leyenda]

thanks ked for this well thought out report... and i am enjoying wbf more lately too

 

[Carlos269]

Just some thoughts:

1) You are mastering the recording but it is a system specific mastering, which means it would not be generally appropriate.
2) I understand what you are saying. The tools are acting in a consistent way but given the difference in spectral content of each recording the actual amount of processing is changing from recording to recording.
3) Understood. However, you are then admitting that the system has particular limitations that need corrective tools to rectify. I am ok with that admission as no system does it all perfectly. I am assuming you are still able to get maximum contrast between the quality of recordings? It doesn't render them all "perfect" and thereby imposing it's own coloration.
4) So, you are saying that with a different system you would actually chosen different analog profi hardware to do the "remastering"?? Why wouldn't the tools you used on the WAAR be sufficient?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) I would not have changed anything if it was already perfect. I stated my motivation in my “There is a smarter way” thread.
4) They could be the same tools, would not know that until I knew what the target system/owner needs and what changes need to come about.

 

[Kcin]

For this kind of comparison amplifier should be biased each time you switched tubes. Biasing is difficult on some amps especially when you have to take the bottom cover off. If you skip biasing it won't be fair test.

I heard Elrog 211 tubes about 10 years ago and they sounded like transistor to me. I don't know how they sound now, probably improved..

Of course, always biased appropriately

 

[WBF Team]

Let's get this thread back on track. Its purpose is to discuss Zero Distortion and the Rhapsody Dallas room. Any future posts which deviate from that subject will be deleted.

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos, your 40 systems and the WAAR system sound very interesting. You might want to start a thread on it all. This thread WAS about Ked's visit to the new Rhapsody Dallas showroom.

Bob see post # 115 on this thread. The exchange with Brad is bringing attention to Bonzo’s visit so you are benefiting from it, so wise up!

 

[Kcin]

Molybdenum 211 is an option for both AN and Elrog Mayer

The Elrog I had here 2 years ago and the AN was current production acquired from Parts Connexion

Audio Note (UK) 211 (4242E) Transmitting Triode Power Tubes

Audio Note 211 (4242E) Transmitting Triode Power Tubes Developed in partnership with PSvane, and built exclusively for Audio Note to their designs and specifications, these valves are available only from themselves and their authorized Dealers and Distributors. They are the finest available...

partsconnexion.com

- I am not sure of Molybdenum on either really. I still have the AN boxed up as spares.

 

[Rhapsody]

Bob see post # 115 on this thread. The exchange with Brad is bringing attention to Bonzo’s visit so you are benefiting from it, so wise up!

Carlos, your exchange with Brad and your posting videos on this thread has NOTHING to do with Ked's visit to the Dallas showroom. It's all about YOU and YOUR WAAR system.

I am not interested in benefiting from Ked's visit to our showroom, Ked requested the visit and we obliged. I certainly enjoyed his trip report as I always enjoy reading Ked's trip reports.

As the moderator has requested please keep posts on this thread about the topic of the thread. If you wish to continue a dialogue with me please pm me or call me at 212-229-1842 so as to not further pollute this thread.

 

[Carlos269]

Did anyone else notice how dull and lifeless the Diesis/Kondo systems sounded in Bonzo’s videos, in the visit Rhapsody Dallas report?

 

[Hessec]

No that is not possible nor fair to do without comparing on different speakers. Chris has been a dealer for Boulder, Soulution, and CH before. Dealer caveats aside, he might be able to arrange one for a serious buyer. It doesn’t have SS harshness and has musical tone. Is clean and transparent, that I can say.

Soulution I only like the preamp with valve power amps and the 720 is a bargain in the used market despite its retail.

CH is excellent if gain, feedback and impedance settings are tuned in properly.

Audionet with Lampi has been my best digital experience due to a match of the electronics.

Luxman is high value due to the lower retail especially in Asia and Europe.

But if I had a lot of money to spend on the amps I would just swap to efficient speakers and get the Kondo chain at what SS amps are priced for these days.

Thrax also makes very good hybrids that have some power for inefficient speakers. So lots of choices.

Correction. I have never been a Boulder, Soulution or CH dealer. I owned Boulder 1000 then 2000 series including phono stages and dacs for over a decade. Recently experienced the 3060 and 2110 on 3 separate occasions at a customer's home.

I owned Soulution 500/700 for about the same amount of time. I still have a Soulution 746 player for those who come in with CD's.

CH for less and I did not go up the chain to give any reasonable impression of the sound beyond the base models.

Chris

 

[bonzo75]

Correction. I have never been a Boulder, Soulution or CH dealer. I owned Boulder 1000 then 2000 series including phono stages and dacs for over a decade. Recently experienced the 3060 and 2110 on 3 separate occasions at a customer's home.

I owned Soulution 500/700 for about the same amount of time. I still have a Soulution 746 player for those who come in with CD's.

CH for less and I did not go up the chain to give any reasonable impression of the sound beyond the base models.

Chris

ah ok thanks so you owned it as a private individual. My bad.

 

[Hessec]

Do you have any listening experiences as regards the Gakuoh mk I, be it the push pull version (30 watts) or se version (20 watts)?

Kagura’s are 50 watts se amps, Gakuoh mk ii are 20 watts se amps (there is no Gakuoh mk ii push pull version). So no surprise that the Kagura’s are (much) better than the Gakuohs mk ii as regards dynamics.

The 20 watts Gakuohs mk I se version could not (fully) control my Tidal La Assoluta loudspeakers, notwithstanding the fact that the LA’s are (quite) efficient cone loudspeakers with an easy impedance curve (no drops below 4 ohms). The 30 watts Gakuohs mk I push pull version however is a completely different story: much more powerful than the se version and as a consequence much better control over my LA’s.

Scroll down the specifications on this page. It is indeed a push pull unless their website is incorrect. Sounds like push pull to me.

Gakuoh II | AUDIO NOTE

AUDIO NOTE Traditional 300B circuit implemented based on the latest knowledge.

www.audionote.co.jp

 

[Rhapsody]

Scroll down the specifications on this page. It is indeed a push pull unless their website is incorrect. Sounds like push pull to me.

Gakuoh II | AUDIO NOTE

AUDIO NOTE Traditional 300B circuit implemented based on the latest knowledge.

www.audionote.co.jp

They are push-pull, 100%.

 

[Audiocrack]

Scroll down the specifications on this page. It is indeed a push pull unless their website is incorrect. Sounds like push pull to me.

Gakuoh II | AUDIO NOTE

AUDIO NOTE Traditional 300B circuit implemented based on the latest knowledge.

www.audionote.co.jp

Yes, you are right, so my mistake.

 

[Audiocrack]

Intriguing that the mk ii push pull Gakuoh is ‘only’ 20 watts while the Gakuoh mk I push pull amps are 30 watts.