Thoughts on the sound from those who aren't Kool-Aid drinking fanboys.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #240 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:04 am »

Theoretically we could place the life size 3dimensional picture or hologram beside the subject and we would not be able to distinguish them from one another. Of course part of my problem is that I don't know what the definition of a perfect picture is.
Scotty

DaveC113 · « **Reply #241 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:14 am »

I'm not sure we have the technology to know how close to perfect something is, and after building my own amp and preamp I realize there is nothing even close. Most people here (I think) think cables make a difference, and that's only a piece of wire. When you get into resistors, caps, and gain devices there is even more difference in how you can voice your system.

Also, while I haven't heard the NCores, I have yet to hear a class D amp I could live with. I agree they have shortcomings that get more and more annoying over time. They are also very sensitive to component and cabling changes, which is a double edged sword. I will also stick to tubes...

Tyson · « **Reply #242 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:20 am »

IT'S ALL A BIG FAKE!

Props to Mike for hitting that one out of the park!!!

doug s. · « **Reply #243 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:25 am »

Quote from: *Scotty* on 4 Aug 2012, 03:49 am

doug you have mis-understood the nature of my question. An "ideal" was never part of the question. Ideals are based on a value judgment which exists in the ear of the beholder. My question involves how one goes about recognizing a component which is perfect, perhaps a straight wire with gain. Because we never knowingly encounter perfection how do we recognize a component that is even significantly better than anything we have encountered before.
Scotty

no, i have not misunderstood your question. imo, if a component is "perfect", it will, of necessity, not be a straight wire with gain. it will, of necessity, somehow change the recording, in some way, to make it sound more real.

which is why it is difficult, if not impossible for anyone to recognize this mythical beast - it will differ, depending on the person recognizing it, and depending on the recording... i.e.: it will be what we now have, which is why there is no uniwersal agreement on which pieces of equipment are "best"...

doug s.

doug s. · « **Reply #244 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:27 am »

Quote from: Tyson on 4 Aug 2012, 04:20 am

IT'S ALL A BIG FAKE!

Props to Mike for hitting that one out of the park!!!

agreed. it has to be fake, if one is fooled into believing recorded music is the real thing!

doug s.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #245 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 05:14 am »

My question my definition. My question has nothing to do with best. You change the definition and we have you asking and answering your own question. A different conversation. You basically have said that you don't want to hear the original signal that exists on the recording without imposing your idea/ideals upon it. This is your personal definition of perfection. And your ipso facto definition of more "real" implies that all recordings depart from real in the same way and require the same editorial pen strokes. Given the vast difference that exist between one recording and another I don't think a universal fix applied across board to all recordings will always be appropriate. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
Scotty

Tyson · « **Reply #246 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 05:31 am »

You are right on Scotty, recordings do deviate from reality, and in a myriad of different ways. That's why you should go active - you can adjust the sound to compensate yourself. In fact, I have different presets I can cycle through - some have more bass, some have midrange emphasis, some have highs increased, some have lower mids bumped, etc... It's actually really useful.

I know that this takes me out of the realm of perfect fidelity to the recording, but the fact is that recordings are not perfect, so why should I try to perfectly reproduce imperfection?

doug s. · « **Reply #247 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 05:44 am »

i specifically stated that recordings are all different. which is why i believe it is impossible for there to be a one size fits all "perfect" component. and, which leads me to agree w/tyson.

yes, i changed the definition of "perfect" - for me, "perfect" takes me closer to the live event, not the recording. and yes, it is a moving target. which is why, even if you do have a component that is "perfect" to the recording, you likely won't even know it.

ymmv,

doug s.

Tyson · « **Reply #248 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 05:54 am »

Doug, how dare you use live music as your reference, rather than a master tape as your reference! Who are YOU to judge whether your system sounds close to live music? Dammit man, just meekly accept that the recordings are TRUTH and your system is properly an alter to worship this TRUTH.

*Scotty* · « **Reply #249 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 06:07 am »

Tyson, I have applied rather simple equalization in the digital domain to some recordings and I have had better results to my ears when I have done this to recordings with less complex production values. Recordings that were mixed for AM air-play for example, seem to respond well to a kind of tone control approach in which the bass is boosted until the recording sounds balanced. Pop recordings on the other hand, with very complex mixes and a goofball frequency balance just give me the desire to completely remix them which I can't do so I just listen to them unaltered.
To me these recordings sound plenty real, only mixed and equalized for play back through a car radio or something. I am fairly certain that if I could have been in the studio listening to them with the sound of their instruments blending together as a result of being played in the same acoustic space and not multi-miced and pan-potted into an artificial image and frequency balance, that I would like the sound better than the recording engineers effort. I frequently like live concert recordings better than studio efforts because they sound a little less artificial.
Scotty

Nick77 · « **Reply #250 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 10:57 am »

Quote

The questionable: high frequencies just do not seem to be totally fleshed out: that is, things likes bells, cymbals, and chimes seem to have a bit truncated decays, missing the full harmonic envelope.

My impression is that something is actually missing from the output of the nCore, something which is present at the input, and is not the result of distortion in other amplifiers. Does anyone else notice this quality?

Quote

My experience parallels yours, Barrows. Among the excellent things the Ncores do, at their worst they sound flat, dull and sucked-out in certain important ways they reproduce mid and high frequencies. I suspect feedback is partly the source for these qualities.

I completely agree with these impressions of the Ncore and add my voice to the choir. I felt the last little ounce of music wasn't enunciated and therefore left a rather flat overall presentation.

I think Barrows hit the nail on the head, "the decay has been cut off". It isnt a result of more break-in as the Tour amps i heard were fully broke-in. I kept thinking it was just problematic in the tour build but seems to go beyond that.

The strengths were numerous but i dont understand why this obvious weakness isnt stated across the board.

Has this been overcome in some builds??

Geardaddy · « **Reply #251 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 11:34 am »

Hilarious thread title. Bravo. I too have been a glassy-eyed fan boy. Primed and programmed by my manufacturer handler....

Truncated highs has been the experience with every class D offering I have had in my system (have not heard the Cores yet). It does seem that most philes who own them longterm rely on tube pre-amps to embellish the blighted and cardboardish sonic landscape.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #252 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 12:26 pm »

In order to realize a perfect amp, you must also have the perfect speaker. We are far, far away from the perfect speaker.

Freo-1 · « **Reply #253 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 12:41 pm »

Quote from: mgalusha on 4 Aug 2012, 02:31 am

Single Malt drinking fanboys...

+1

OzarkTom · « **Reply #254 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 12:54 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 4 Aug 2012, 03:06 am

Is a passive preamp "perfect"?

No, and Paul McGowan tells us why in today's daily newsletter.
http://www.pstracks.com/pauls-posts/volume-controls/7678/

Over 25 years ago I found that my analog preamp was distorting my CD player. Many cries against CD over the years has been from using these analog preamps with CD. I went passive way back then since passive sounded better.

But one day when I went straight in, bypassing the passive preamp, a major improvement was also made, a much larger soundstage with way more holographic imaging. Ever since then, I have wanted an amp with a built-in CD player with remote digital volume control.

IMO, maybe someone can build the ultimate remote controlled digital amp with the ultimate Dac inside it. Now this would be the ultimate component for me. I have been waiting for this for over 25 years.

Bruno, are you listening?

golfugh · « **Reply #255 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 01:06 pm »

Ozark the link has a virus! Just stopped by Avast

doug s. · « **Reply #256 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 03:14 pm »

Quote from: Geardaddy on 4 Aug 2012, 11:34 am

Hilarious thread title. Bravo. I too have been a glassy-eyed fan boy. Primed and programmed by my manufacturer handler....

Truncated highs has been the experience with every class D offering I have had in my system (have not heard the Cores yet). It does seem that most philes who own them longterm rely on tube pre-amps to embellish the blighted and cardboardish sonic landscape.

for long term enjoyment of reproduced music playback in my home, i rely on a tube preamp regardless of what amp i am using...

doug s.
ps - no way i would ever consider cd playback w/o a tube preamp in the signal path, regardless of what paul mcgowan says.

medium jim · « **Reply #257 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:46 pm »

Quote from: doug s. on 4 Aug 2012, 03:14 pm

for long term enjoyment of reproduced music playback in my home, i rely on a tube preamp regardless of what amp i am using...

doug s.
ps - no way i would ever consider cd playback w/o a tube preamp in the signal path, regardless of what paul mcgowan says.

And for me, a tube buffer or a tubes in the post DAC stage.

Jim

Tyson · « **Reply #258 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:50 pm »

And for me, a DAC integrated into my preamp/crossover/EQ feeding dedicated tube amps - one for the highs, one for the mids, and a monster bass amp on the bass. Tubes rule, but so does a super short audio chain.

Barry_NJ · « **Reply #259 on:** 4 Aug 2012, 04:57 pm »

One must first realize, that perfection itself does not exist, to then understand, that it can never be reproduced...