"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.

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?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but what is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system. Take away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are used to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and interesting.


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

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
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?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but what
is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system. Take
away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are used
to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I
did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about
an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the
most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


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

I can understand the component differences but try and get hold a good
recording of a live event that you've attended (before mastering if
possible) and use that plus your own memory (which is unreliable at the best
of times but it's the best you've got) use that as your reference. Remember
if its a dry acoustic recording then mastering may well add reverb,
compression and additional processing which muddles your objective. Using
that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of component selection.

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
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?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but
what is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system.
Take away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are
used to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I
did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about
an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the
most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


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

I can understand the component differences but try and get hold a good
recording of a live event that you've attended (before mastering if
possible) and use that plus your own memory (which is unreliable at the
best of times but it's the best you've got) use that as your reference.
Remember if its a dry acoustic recording then mastering may well add
reverb, compression and additional processing which muddles your
objective. Using that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of
component selection.

It helps to know a recording eng ..and most importantly get permission from
the artists, say its for your own tech use - some may refuse.

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
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?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but
what is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system.
Take away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are
used to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I
did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was
about an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the
most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


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

I can understand the component differences but try and get hold a good
recording of a live event that you've attended (before mastering if
possible) and use that plus your own memory (which is unreliable at the
best of times but it's the best you've got) use that as your reference.
Remember if its a dry acoustic recording then mastering may well add
reverb, compression and additional processing which muddles your
objective. Using that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of
component selection.

It helps to know a recording eng ..and most importantly get permission
from the artists, say its for your own tech use - some may refuse.

Most recording engineers cannot take the risk.
Most artists would not agree.
No record company would agree - they are paranoid about bootlegging :-)

Iain

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
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?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but
what is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real
life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system.
Take away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are
used to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test
I did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was
about an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was
the most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


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

I can understand the component differences but try and get hold a good
recording of a live event that you've attended (before mastering if
possible) and use that plus your own memory (which is unreliable at the
best of times but it's the best you've got) use that as your reference.
Remember if its a dry acoustic recording then mastering may well add
reverb, compression and additional processing which muddles your
objective. Using that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of
component selection.

It helps to know a recording eng ..and most importantly get permission
from the artists, say its for your own tech use - some may refuse.

Most recording engineers cannot take the risk.
Most artists would not agree.
No record company would agree - they are paranoid about bootlegging :-)

Iain


I've recorded at many jazz events and festivals for local radio My finding
are if you have a good rapport with artist/s and state on the strict proviso
of deletion after single use. This applied after radio broadcast or local
club play, tapes bulk erased and software deleted. Also most SR guys have a
CDR running. I don't ask for personal use if I know a muso or band is under
contract.
One French Jazz Band (The Hot Antic Jazz Band) once gave me the full rights
to a show recording with the do what I like with it. My experience also of
Carol Kidds unamplified voice for comparison realtime (cool) she stayed at a
friends house during tour :-)
Also plenty of SR guys have a CDR running in the rack - it not too hard if
you try.

Mike
The world is a friendly place if you smile :-)

Using that original gives you a reasonable chance imo of component selection.


Well, I've recorded myself alone and in various bands countless times but not
recently and not well enough. I could do this, since I have a double bass and a
Bechstein grand right next to the hi-fi, and I have a Tascam DAT recorder. Not
sure about mics - I'm not a recording engineer. But yes, this could be done.
Andy

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

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
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?

Maybe I'm not describing this correctly - the dynamics are there, but what
is
absent is the reproduction of sounds 'larger' than they are in real life
through added reverberation and hash in the hifi reproduction system. Take
away
this added 'presence' and the original experience remains. If you are used
to
resonances of various kinds enlarging the sound, then the effect is of
removing
something or making the sound smaller. One example is a listening test I
did
with three types of ICW capacitors (47uF) which increased in size and
power
rating (160 to 630v) as the film used got thicker. The smallest was about
an
inch diameter, the biggest the size of a coffee cup. The biggest was the
most
acoustically dead, and the sound was as I describe - more focussed and
less
lively. However, though I preferred the large cap, an audio designer
sitting
next to me preferred the middle one, saying it was more lively and
interesting.


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

47µF is not a large capacitor. I remember from my student days being taught
that
the working voltage of an electrolytic should be rated at 1.4 times the
voltage across
it (providing that it will always operate under loaded conditions) and that
elctrolytics
with a working voltage rating much higher than the actual voltage across
them gradually
loose their ability to operate at the higher voltage.

The reason you liked the second capacitor better may be that it had a
better
electrical performance. There are so many factors beside just capacitance
and DC voltage working. for example ESR, Impedance, and Ripple factor.

Iain

47µF is not a large capacitor.

It is when it's polypropylene! I use all polypropylene caps in crossovers. andy

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

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
47µF is not a large capacitor.

It is when it's polypropylene! I use all polypropylene caps in crossovers.
andy

Sorry! For some reason I thought we were talking about a PSU
electrolytic:-)
But I still say 47µF is not a large cap. A pal of mine in Stockholm lives
opposite
a high security warehouse, five floor, with no windows. He is convinced it
is
actually a 1MegaFarad 10kV electrolytic:-)

Iain