Improving harsh recording - will tube buffer help?

95bcwh · « **on:** 19 Nov 2006, 05:19 pm »

Folks,
Can anyone suggest a way to improve the sound of harsh recordings? My current setup is as follow:

Bolder SB3 digital out -> Aberdeen Modified Tact 2.0S -> Moscode 401HR - Salk HT3

On good recordings, it sounded real good.. very good..like music from heaven. But on bad recordings, but it's too revealing, sounded harsh and thin at times. I was thinking of adding a little flexibility into my current system, maybe insert a tube buffer between the Tact and the Moscode when I'm in the mood of listening to some bad recordings?

I'm even thinking of getting an NOS DAC and a tube preamp so I can run the digital out from the Tact into this NOS DAC and tube preamp before going into the Moscode 401HR.

Any suggestion is welcome. Thanks!

Regards
barry

AB · « **Reply #1 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 05:26 pm »

Give an example of a "bad recording".

One man's bad might be just fine to another.

tvad4 · « **Reply #2 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 05:31 pm »

The Padadisea DAC's single tube is a buffer. The music that comes out sounds like vinyl to me.

King Crimson's "Red" is an example of a recording that I consider to sound harsh. Also XTC's "Skylarking" has sounded thin and tipped up, but not so with the Paradisea.

95bcwh · « **Reply #3 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 05:36 pm »

e.g. ABBA's Gold..

Quote from: AB on 19 Nov 2006, 05:26 pm

Give an example of a "bad recording".

One man's bad might be just fine to another.

jhm731 · « **Reply #4 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 05:38 pm »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 19 Nov 2006, 05:19 pm

Folks,
Can anyone suggest a way to improve the sound of harsh recordings? My current setup is as follow:

Bolder SB3 digital out -> Aberdeen Modified Tact 2.0S -> Moscode 401HR - Salk HT3

On good recordings, it sounded real good.. very good..like music from heaven. But on bad recordings, but it's too revealing, sounded harsh and thin at times. I was thinking of adding a little flexibility into my current system, maybe insert a tube buffer between the Tact and the Moscode when I'm in the mood of listening to some bad recordings?

I'm even thinking of getting an NOS DAC and a tube preamp so I can run the digital out from the Tact into this NOS DAC and tube preamp before going into the Moscode 401HR.

Any suggestion is welcome. Thanks!

Regards
barry

It's not the DAC cards, if they've been modified by Aberdeen.

You already have a "tube buffer" in the Moscode 401HR.

On harsh recording reduce the digital output of the SB3 by 3-5 dbs.

See message #24944 on the TacT Users forum.

tvad4 · « **Reply #5 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 05:48 pm »

Quote

You already have a "tube buffer" in the Moscode 401HR.

The Moscode uses small signal tubes in its driver stage, not as buffers.

To my knowledge, a tube buffer is placed between the output opamps and the device's signal outputs. Is this not correct?

From the Enjoy the Music Paradisea review:
"The Paradisea DAC uses a single 5670 vacuum tube. This tube is directly coupled to the output of the Burr Brown OPA2604 opamp...

Just downstream of the output opamps resides the 5670 vacuum tube. This tube adds a nominal amount of gain to the output stage. The tube acts as a buffer, which gives the DAC the tube qualities that many of us have come to know and love. In other words, the design of the Paradisea is not a true tubed gain stage, it is merely a tube buffered output with the critical gain stage being handled by a pair of quality opamps."

miklorsmith · « **Reply #6 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 05:54 pm »

Having owned the TacT 2.0s, 2.2X, and now 2.2XP I feel confident the DACs are subpar. I've used a Monica-2, Ack! 2.0, and now Altmann Attraction. I liked all of them better than the stock DACs.

Anthony at Aberdeen Components/MauiMods offers a complete suite of upgrades for the TacT units. I haven't heard any bad words and many good ones. Talk to George about his experiences, as the two of you have very similar systems.

My reasons for going outboard with the DAC instead of internal upgrades are mostly that I am very fond of the battery/NOS combination. I have a highly modified Modwright CDP with his tubed output stage. It is an excellent sound, but less analog than any of the NOS DACs I've had. My opinion is the DAC architecture has more to do with digititis than the output stage. I also believe in putting tubes in the system, though you already have some.

The Paradisea is certainly a hot product right now. Lots of experienced folks are really digging them and it sounds like this could be the ticket. Buying used is a good idea, but I'd look for a current product as the technology is turning over very fast.

Also, you could try a test tone CD. See if there are some particular frequencies aggravating the problem. Create a correction profile that diminishes these frequencies. Sure, you won't have clinically "flat" response, but that's overrated anyway.

Good luck!

tvad4 · « **Reply #7 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 06:00 pm »

Quote

...you won't have clinically "flat" response, but that's overrated anyway.

Amen to that.

95bcwh · « **Reply #8 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 06:01 pm »

Having experienced the Moscode, I do believe that the only way to get rid of the harshness is by adding more tubes - i.e. more "distortion"

I have my Tact fully modified by Aberdeen, I have no complains, I have compared a modified LiteAudio DAC60 to the DAC inside the TACT after modified by Aberdeen and the DAC60 is no match in terms of refinement and resolution. But the DAC60 is certainly more forgiving.

I am tempted to try a cheap buffer like the one made by Musical Fidelity (X-10v3) and see how it goes. I'm also tempted to try the Paradisea, but I need to find a preamp to go with it, which is another headache.

miklorsmith · « **Reply #9 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 06:16 pm »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 19 Nov 2006, 06:01 pm

. . . I'm also tempted to try the Paradisea, but I need to find a preamp to go with it, which is another headache.

The TacT digital-outs are variable output, that is the Paradisea (or any DAC) should plug into the digital outs and the TacT volume control will work fine. Then you can run your measurement/correction with the DAC in place too. It should be plug-and-play.

Bob Reynolds · « **Reply #10 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 06:31 pm »

Why would you want to add a tube (additional distortion as you say) that may be more to your liking on a few recordings, but is sure to worsen the better recordings?

This sounds like a perfect task for an equalizer -- tailor the frequency response to the specific recording. Isn't that what the Tact will let you do?

95bcwh · « **Reply #11 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 06:49 pm »

Oh no, I'm not going to worsen the better recordings..I will only insert this "tweak" when I'm listening to bad recordings. When I'm listening to good recording, I will remove the "tweak" and use what I have right now.

Unfortunately, the equalizer doesn't generate the same kind of "pleasant distortion" found in tube.

Quote from: Bob Reynolds on 19 Nov 2006, 06:31 pm

Why would you want to add a tube (additional distortion as you say) that may be more to your liking on a few recordings, but is sure to worsen the better recordings?

This sounds like a perfect task for an equalizer -- tailor the frequency response to the specific recording. Isn't that what the Tact will let you do?

jhm731 · « **Reply #12 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 07:04 pm »

If you're happy with your Aberdeen TacT, try the no cost SB3 digital volume level change on harsh recordings.

Even with the Aberdeen mods, the TacT's digital inputs are still sensitive to overload and noise.

Fix the problem at the source, don't put bandaids on the problem.

Daygloworange · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 07:17 pm »

Quote

On good recordings, it sounded real good.. very good..like music from heaven. But on bad recordings, but it's too revealing, sounded harsh and thin at times.

That's the caveat when you assemble a system of fairly high resolution, you start to hear more clearly the shortcomings. As your system goes up in resolution, so do the shortcomings. I'm not familiar with the TacT, but if it is somekind of programable EQ, with memory banks for the EQ curves you create, then I would say to go that route.

Finding a piece of tube gear that will synergize well with a few bad recordings might not synergize well with others. You could then end up chasing after band-aid fixes.

Quote

Sure, you won't have clinically "flat" response, but that's overrated anyway.

Some people like a flat response, some people don't. Calling it overrated would imply that a system capable of flat resolution, in a room capable of flat resolution, as inferior or undesirable. I think you might find quite a few people who would desire such a system.

Cheers

miklorsmith · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 07:35 pm »

My point merely was that few people would choose a purely flat frequency response for any reason but dogma - same reason "tube distortion" is so popular. Random deviations from flat are generally undesirable, while controllable adjustments are highly desirable. Spending time with a TacT proves this to be true. I like a curve that's a little fattened in the bass and a few db down through the presence band, 1k - 3k.

Part of the reason for this is the ear is more sensitive to midrange at lower volumes. As the volume goes up, ears actually become more linear in response. A "flat" response cranked up loud might be perfect, but especially bass will be pretty light. Also, flat to 20 khz will probably bore into your skull after a fairly short period. These upper frequencies are also where most of the worst problems of digital reside. A slightly recessed treble response is one of the reasons NOS DACs sound more natural. Is it less accurate? Probably. But, I contend that pure accuracy is a function of the analytical brain, where I listen to my system more for the emotional brain.

Having a system capable of flat response is not the same thing as preferring it.

95bcwh · « **Reply #15 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 07:43 pm »

Yeah.. I do have to agree with many of your opinions. Indeed I now 9 different target curves in my Tact 2.0S, none of these curves are flat. (I don't like flat curve in my room). One of the differences I made in each curves is the degree of high-frequency roll-off. It does help, and I like the flexibility of the Tact. I'm just tempted to try more "tube"..

Daygloworange · « **Reply #16 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 07:49 pm »

Quote

My point merely was that few people would choose a purely flat frequency response for any reason but dogma - same reason "tube distortion" is so popular. Random deviations from flat are generally undesirable, while controllable adjustments are highly desirable. Spending time with a TacT proves this to be true. I like a curve that's a little fattened in the bass and a few db down through the presence band, 1k - 3k.

It might be difficult to argue the case for flat, given that it reveals shortcomings in the source material to a greater degree. Words like analytical, cold, not musical are used, but really the root of the problem is the source. Garbage in garbage out. A system shouldn't be slandered for what it does well, if what is does is show flaws in the source material.

Tube distortion is popular. That is true. It is also ,distortion. That's true as well.

It boils down to preference.

Cheers

Berndt · « **Reply #17 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 08:02 pm »

I've had a similiar experience to the topic.
My digital sources were outclassed by vinyl and a tuner who's total value was 100$.
Running a tube pre has not had any negative results in my system.
My Olive Musica sounds very nice through the mapletree pre.
It also aquited itself at out first norcal meet.

dado5 · « **Reply #18 on:** 20 Nov 2006, 02:36 pm »

If you already have EQ capability looking for a tube buffer is like hammering a screw.

Many folks have sensitive hearing in the upper presence/low treble range (3K - 8K) and taking a stab, I would say you are one.. Unfortunately, this is the range where many of the less pleasant musical overtones reside. Things like vocal sibilance, percussion crack & slap, plucked string clicks and drawn string screech are here. Many recordings are elevated in level at these frequencies for various reasons and this can be hard to bear.

Take the hearing test here. The results would shed some light on your hearing curve and let you know what frequencies to EQ down for bad recordings. Save the money for better recordings

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/hearing.html

miklorsmith · « **Reply #19 on:** 20 Nov 2006, 03:29 pm »

Quote from: dado5 on 20 Nov 2006, 02:36 pm

If you already have EQ capability looking for a tube buffer is like hammering a screw.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/hearing.html

Completely disagree. I have a little experience with tubes and have owned three different models of TacT preamps. If tube-magic was merely tweaking the FR graph, everybody would have equalizers and nobody would have tubes. They are somewhat of a pain, but people put up with them. It has very little to do with frequency response and everything to do with the soul of music.

I use my TacT to dial in the frequency response. Then, I use my SET amp to give size and shape to instruments and to let them breathe. It brings the wood of instruments into the room instead of just the strings. Voices are attached to physical, quavering forms. Drumheads have amazing decays that I have not heard through all SS systems.

Tubes are fairy dust, not equalizers.