"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
Contrary to what Stewart and others think, I've spent 35 years building
and
tweaking hifi with one aim in mind - to make the hi-fi system sound like
live
music. I didn't use measurements for this, I used my ears since I've been
a
professional musician for most of my life. I also did all improvements
methodically, switching one thing at a time, and preferring a closer
approach
to the original sound, more fidelity in instrumental timbre and more
detail,
reasoning that any unrealistic timbre or detail masked was not 'fidelity'
to
the source. OK. ~ Now the point is this:
How many of us know exactly how acoustic instruments and voices actually
sound?
If you go to live classical or jazz concerts where music is unamplified
(plus
folk etc), it actually has a particular sound to it which is smooth,
natural,
even bland.

I can't agree with that, as with your hi-fi system the acoustics of the live
event and your position in the diffuse field can provide you with completely
different listening experiences. I have recorded many (unamplified) jazz
concerts and only a minority were acoustically bland, some were extremely
dynamic e.g. either concert or jazz pianists, drums in both classical or
jazz settings,. Consider a big band - it can be smooth or amazingly dynamic
depending on many factors.

It's unimpressive in many ways compared to our "delusional" hifi
kits and our delusional hifi language. It doesn't have 'warmth', or
'bloom' or
'bass slam' or even PRAT. What it does have is a lot of nothing - nothing
between individual instruments except space. To reproduce this it's
necessary
to reproduce a lot of nothing, which is the fantastically difficult bit.
It
means no gloss on the treble, no large soundstage to instruments - they
should
sound like small point sources in exact locations in the soundstage - no
'dynamics' that aren't actually there, and no 'bass slam'. Pretty boring
you
might say. And very hard to achieve - you have to eliminate resonances,
all
sorts of interferences etc etc. You don't so much 'build' a syetem but
'take
away' infidelities of all kinds.
At this point Stewart must be rubbing his hands and saying "I told you
so -
acoustically transparent". Jim must be happy that the amplifier doesn't
exist.
It all sounds great. Except that this isn't the gospel according to
Stewart.
Because:
a) I'm quite sure amplifiers and indeed componants sound different, and
I've
been doing systematic choices between componants to eliminate infidelities
for
countless years.

Agreed - to my ear without double blind testing

b) I've done all this by ear

Ditto as have the majority of hi-fi hobbyists.

c) I use all valve equipment, and I don't think I could get transparency
so
easily with solid state.

I'll agree with that.

d) I don't think valves sound 'warm' - another delusion - the ones I build
sound smooth (to my ears smoother than solid state) and dynamic (without a
kind
of 'greyness' I hear in some solid state products)

Ditto


e) I don't think there is such a thing as 'acoustically transparent', only
approximations towards this goal.

That's the fun in working towards the unobtainable goal ;-)


Why this post then? I just eliminated another level of grunge - yes, more
has
"gone" leaving the sound a lot better. I started by using better speaker
cables
(solid copper core, the previous ones were coloured).

I found the same after years experimenting with cables (used to manufacture
& sell them) I settled with Cogan-Hall copper (central heating pipes if you
want, they work as well and a lot cheaper)


Then I wired my whole
system through a monster variac which I have (25 amps).

Makes a huge difference IMO (again unsubstantiated by double blind tests) I
use 25mm SWA from consumer unit & distribution.

Obviously an effective
mains cleaner. Some studios use huge toroids for this, like over 1K VA
isolation transformers, e.g. mine is over a foot in diameter and 6" high.
My
first reaction was that the sound was boring. The "foreground" of the
sound was
less obvious - the soundstage was the same, neither more forward or
backward,
but instruments sounded relatively tiny and melodies less 'obvious'. There
was
a lot of nothing between instruments, and their actual location was
spookily
exact. The sound seemed quieter because of this, and also the treble
seemed dim
initially. In fact the treble was all there, and the sound of the triangle
and
cymbals was exactly right, just not spread all over the place. It took a
while
for it to dawn on me that this was the closest I had come to the sound of
live
music. Yep, smooth, quite bland, a lot of nothing but loads of fine
detail,
faithful timbre to instruments - in short a step further towards
acoustically
transparent. No warmth, no bloom, no PRAT, no bass slam. Spooky. After a
little
while I started to get excited! And looking back on the whole saga of
'warm
valve amps', PRAT, slam etc etc, the whole business of Hi-Fi seemed
delusional.
I'm sure this post will be of little use to those who listen mainly to
rock and
amplified music, but for those who listen to classical and acoustic music,
getting closer to 'nothing much except the live sound of music' may matter
a
lot. It's taken me 35 years to eliminate enough grunge to actually get
this
far, and no I couldn't have got there sooner or even at all with a big
Krell -
I know that one very well, my brother has a Krell and Apogees, and I've
heard
all manner of big ss amps in high end demos. I'm quite unrepentant about
how
I've made my Hi-fi sound natural, and all the changes I've done have been
carefully thought out. It's a bit like Salome's seven veils - you have to
lift
all the veils to see what's really there, which is, errm, nothing. Thought
for
the day.

Recreating fine detail, faithfully timbre in music is all very well but you
want those dynamics too - its all part of the listening experience. Good
live unamplified music is anything but boring surely?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.