[drbobbybones]

/kill thread

 
I agree with your points.  We may all be after different things, or we may all be after the same thing (transparency), but we all define that thing differently, and some of us are more open minded than others on how to get there.  I don't mind adding things to the chain to see if it sounds better or more transparent for me.  Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.  As a physician and scientist, that's part of the fun for me--the experimentation.  And if you all think my opinion isn't worth listening to about this because of that, I can live with that--hope you guys can too!  

 

[rkt31]

there is coloration added in the chain in every step like mic, preamp, recorder , player ( dac ) , preamp, amp and speakers. but for an audiophile and in Hi Fi fidelity terms the most important stage is the player ( dac) it should be as transparent as possible that's what hi fidelity all about. rest may be one's choice , adding tube warmth to the transparent source or adding high power solid state amp to drive big speakers etc etc. that's where Dave fits so well as most transparent source ever. the more transparent is source , more headroom it has to reproduce every scenario. like in movies there are varying scenarios , conversation in a closed room, car chases and blasts in open , ''compressed bass heavy music playing in a club'' it should be able reproduce all like it was intended .

 

[Christer]

I'm not necessarily looking for colorations per se. I actually think sometimes tubes make music seem more lifelike.

With your classical concert analogy--I can tell you that seeing a classical performance in the Philadelphia Academy of Music sounds entirely different than seeing the same concert at the Hollywood Bowl. And both are lifelike and real, so to speak.

The same with tubes. My perception of reality depends on a host of factors, with tube amplification being only one part of that. As mentioned before, I hear far more difference by changing my end transducer (speaker, headphone) than I do by choosing a tube amp or not. I'm shooting for transparency as well, tubes or not. To me, it's just a different flavor of transparent.

 Imho you are making some interesting points compared to those  here who ,almost religiously, argue either for or against tubes here.
I also think that the end result is what really counts.
With some recordings the "possibly re-instated" second and third harmonics with tubes into the equation, can  deliver a sound that actually comes closer to how things sounded live, where one has the opportunity to compare how different systems deliver something you can reference to first hand. 
We are as you say  really dealing with "a host of factors" here.
I have to say that to me via headphones directly, DAVE so far comes the closest to how  some of my reference recordings sounded live and at sessions.
But I have quite a few other  recordings in my collection where tubes are actually needed to make them more enjoyable.
But I doubt that I would want tonight's performance of Richard Strauss's Ein Heldenleben  here in KL coloured  any other way than the conductor /orchestra deliver it in the  acoustically excellent concert hall here.
LIVE is for me the one and only real reference, of course accounting for differences in the  acoustics of different halls. And even where you sit, or in my case as a photographer sometimes,where I stand in the hall.
The sound on stage is always very different from what you will hear midstalls or  from the balcony for example.
As you say "a host of factors"  to take into account.
By the way,most well made recordings of classical music at least, tend to deliver a final listener balance close to what the conductor would hear or a slightly higher than front  stalls to sometimes a mid-stalls balance.
The main pair of  mics are often hung above the conductor and spot mics out among the players as needed.
And the not so well done ones will take you on a tour of the orchestra with almost a mic "up the nose" of very player and mixed down at the mixing desk for final production.
With such recordings one minute you are in the woodwind section while they carry the tune and the next minute you are thrown back among the basses.
To me simply mic'd Blumlein or DECCA tree above the conductor generally yields the most pleasing and realistic results for standard stereo listening via speakers and binaural in basically  the same positions for ultimate headphone enjoyment.
And since like me Rob himself  sometimes hails  many of  the old magic classic 60's DECCA recordings one might add that they were ALL made with tube equipment.
Food for thought indeed.
Cheers Christer

 

[drbobbybones]

 
 Imho you are making some interesting points compared to those  here who ,almost religiously, argue either for or against tubes here.
I also think that the end result is what really counts.
With some recordings the "possibly re-instated" second and third harmonics with tubes into the equation, can  deliver a sound that actually comes closer to how things sounded live, where one has the opportunity to compare how different systems deliver something you can reference to first hand. 
We are as you say  really dealing with "a host of factors" here.
I have to say that to me via headphones directly, DAVE so far comes the closest to how  some of my reference recordings sounded live and at sessions.
But I have quite a few other  recordings in my collection where tubes are actually needed to make them more enjoyable.
But I doubt that I would want tonight's performance of Richard Strauss's Ein Heldenleben  here in KL coloured  any other way than the conductor /orchestra deliver it in the  acoustically excellent concert hall here.
LIVE is for me the one and only real reference, of course accounting for differences in the  acoustics of different halls. And even where you sit, or in my case as a photographer sometimes,where I stand in the hall.
The sound on stage is always very different from what you will hear midstalls or  from the balcony for example.
As you say "a host of factors"  to take into account.
By the way,most well made recordings of classical music at least, tend to deliver a final listener balance close to what the conductor would hear or a slightly higher than front  stalls to sometimes a mid-stalls balance.
The main pair of  mics are often hung above the conductor and spot mics out among the players as needed.
And the not so well done ones will take you on a tour of the orchestra with almost a mic "up the nose" of very player and mixed down at the mixing desk for final production.
To me simply mic'd Blumlein or DECCA tree above the conductor generally yields the most pleasing and realistic results for standard stereo listening via speakers and binaural in basically  the same positions for ultimate headphone enjoyment.
And since like me Rob himself  sometimes hails  many of  the old magic classic 60's DECCA recordings one might add that they were ALL made with tube equipment.
Food for thought indeed.
Cheers Christer

YES!  You totally get what I'm trying to say.  For me, tubes are not an either or phenomenon--they are sometimes better for what I'm listening to or my mood.  In certain cases, like with the HD800's, I can get more transparency by going through a tube amplifier fed from the DAVE than going straight through the DAVE using an EQ to flatten out the wonky midrange dip and the treble spike.  

 

[rkt31]

0 ( perfect mean position) exist in theory only. similarly there can't be perfect neutral sound . it will either be slightly warm or slightly cold even if it is on extremely lower side. warmer ( less bright ) sound is the preferred choice over the colder . that's why recording engineer tend to color the sound on warmer side by using tube preamps etc. err too much on warm side in recording chain , you lose details and thus transparency and vice versa. so the role of extremely transparent source ( dac ) becomes much important. the source should not further add color to the sound.

 

[dmance]

I am pretty close (perhaps days) from ditching my loudspeakers and adopting headphones in my pursuit of the transparency you all are talking about. I agree with various posters..nothing beats DAC direct to phones. My jaw drops at the dynamics, I smile regularly when I pick up undiscovered details and though I cant share the amazing fidelity with others...Who cares..I have the sweet spot anyhow.

 

[EVOLVIST]

I am pretty close (perhaps days) from ditching my loudspeakers and adopting headphones in my pursuit of the transparency you all are talking about. I agree with various posters..nothing beats DAC direct to phones. My jaw drops at the dynamics, I smile regularly when I pick up undiscovered details and though I cant share the amazing fidelity with others...Who cares..I have the sweet spot anyhow.

You'll probably want some Focal Utopias with that. Let me know. I have a dealer who will do you know wrong with pretty much any cans you want. He's amazing, actually.

 

[7ryder]

Wait. Hold up. Did I say I was going after such a thing? I posted an extreme case of EQ in some of those devices. That is all.

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply that you were going to do this.
 
Since I explored this several years ago, I just wanted to call this out for everyone that is considering EQ/room correction options.
 
For those of us with speaker systems, the room is probably the most critical thing in the mix and usually the most overlooked by hobbyists. Everyone is looking to change out speakers, DAC, amp, cables, etc. to try to improve the sound instead of investing money where it could potentially make the biggest difference - the room. 
 
Granted, that $10K DAVE in the rack is a lot sexier than $10K spent on room treatments, but without addressing the room, you won't hear your system's full potential. 
 
Which is why when we moved into our house 10+ years ago, I retrofitted and had an existing room fixed first - terrible slap echo, bad peaks and nulls, etc. And even though the room is still open to a hallway, you can hear the noise level drop when you walk into the space - it is much improved.
 
And if you find a firm that knows what they are doing, you can have built-in treatments made that largely meet WAF criteria -- there are no standing bass traps, etc in my room, everything is behind acoustically transparent cloth.  

And now that Dirac Live and Roon can do room correction in the PC before it sends the music file to my DAVE, I'm excited to explore my options and fine tune things further.
 
If you can't do acoustical treatments in your room (regardless of reasons), room correction software that works on your computer prior to sending the file to the DAC can clean up a lot of the issues and allow you to hear more of what your system can do. But room correction software alone isn't going to help bring down the ambient noise level in your room nor can it correct, for example, bass nulls. Still, it is better than nothing.

 

[EVOLVIST]

 
And now that Dirac Live and Roon can do room correction in the PC before it sends the music file to my DAVE, I'm excited to explore my options and fine tune things further.

If you can't do acoustical treatments in your room (regardless of reasons), room correction software that works on your computer prior to sending the file to the DAC can clean up a lot of the issues and allow you to hear more of what your system can do. But room correction software alone isn't going to help bring down the ambient noise level in your room nor can it correct, for example, bass nulls. Still, it is better than nothing.

Hey, no worries. I think I came off as being a little too gruff, anyway. My bad.

Yeah, I've got my speakers set about 8ft apart and my sitting position is 8ft from there, in a triangle. But I've got a wall right behind me. The wife will let me treat the wall, but it will have to be something, I don't know, aesthetically pleasing for her. I don't know if I can possibly fit in bass traps, though.

I've been checking out some of the options and solutions presented on the Roon forums. It's seems that the best solution is Accourate with Roon. Without actually doing it, however, it seems like quite a task. No pain/no gain, as they say, right?

I knew going into speakers I would run across such problems. Now it's just a matter of working them out. I've heard from people who describe their room as much worse than mine, so I hope for good results.

 

[7ryder]

Hey, no worries. I think I came off as being a little too gruff, anyway. My bad.

Yeah, I've got my speakers set about 8ft apart and my sitting position is 8ft from there, in a triangle. But I've got a wall right behind me. The wife will let me treat the wall, but it will have to be something, I don't know, aesthetically pleasing for her. I don't know if I can possibly fit in bass traps, though.

I've been checking out some of the options and solutions presented on the Roon forums. It's seems that the best solution is Accourate with Roon. Without actually doing it, however, it seems like quite a task. No pain/no gain, as they say, right?

I knew going into speakers I would run across such problems. Now it's just a matter of working them out. I've heard from people who describe their room as much worse than mine, so I hope for good results.

No worries, we're good.
 
Sounds like your set-up is about like mine - listening position at least - your triangle and mine are exactly the same and our sitting position (small couch) is about 4" from the wall.
 
In our case it isn't even a full wall because the room is kind of L shape on one side (behind and to my left as I'm facing the speakers) which leads to French doors to another room AND on the right hand side there are stairs going up to the next floor so partially open stairwell - the definitely a room with problems...for the audiophile anyway! Behind that wall is storage under the stairs and a closet where most of my audio equipment is (amp is in the listening room w/ the speakers).
 
We solved for that part of the room by building a bass trap into the wall and then covering the wall with sound absorbing materials and then fabric. we also had to cover the wall at the end of the L (around the French doors) with the same materials. And get this, the treatments work so well, we don't have to use floor coverings on the slate floor that the previous owner put in...good thing, because it is radiant heat. 
 
As I said earlier, it a science, but it is also an art knowing exactly how much insulation to use, etc., but the results are worth it. Frankly, the way the room was before, it would have been unlistenable. 

 

[BunnyNamedCraig]

You'll probably want some Focal Utopias with that. Let me know. I have a dealer who will do you know wrong with pretty much any cans you want. He's amazing, actually.

Awe Evolvist you shouldn't have! JK were not the dealer in question here ha. BUT it is nice to hear that you have someone that you like to go to and have that relationship with  ect... That's part of the process of buying that some customers have not experienced yet. Enjoy your DAVE and the tunes!
 
Also, yes- the Utopias are very transparent and dynamic... Good recommendation.

 

[EVOLVIST]

Awe Evolvist you shouldn't have! JK were not the dealer in question here ha. BUT it is nice to hear that you have someone that you like to go to and have that relationship with  ect... That's part of the process of buying that some customers have not experienced yet. Enjoy your DAVE and the tunes!

Also, yes- the Utopias are very transparent and dynamic... Good recommendation.

We're all loyal to somebody or some thing. I say Star Wars. You say Star Trek.

I say that the quest for transparency is a mug's game.

 

[JaZZ]

 

Awe Evolvist you shouldn't have! JK were not the dealer in question here ha. BUT it is nice to hear that you have someone that you like to go to and have that relationship with  ect... That's part of the process of buying that some customers have not experienced yet. Enjoy your DAVE and the tunes!

Also, yes- the Utopias are very transparent and dynamic... Good recommendation.

We're all loyal to somebody or some thing. I say Star Wars. You say Star Trek.

I say that the quest for transparency is a mug's game.

 
That really does transparency wrong. If anything, it's the quest for constant improvements which is to blame. Transparency is a source of joy, thanks to the effortlessness it provides to listening to music.
 
Neither Star Wars (fairy tails on children's level in a hi-tech package) nor Star Trek (repeated superficial stereotypes) can seduce me to become a fan. But I'm a big fan of sci-fi books. Coke or Pepsi? I ended up with a fair caffein-free mixture.

 

[EVOLVIST]

That really does transparency wrong. If anything, it's the quest for constant improvements which is to blame. Transparency is a source of joy, thanks to the effortlessness it provides to listening to music.

Neither Star Wars (fairy tails on children's level in a hi-tech package) nor Star Trek (repeated superficial stereotypes) can seduce me to become a fan. But I'm a big fan of sci-fi books. Coke or Pepsi? I ended up with a fair caffein-free mixture.

Heh. Well, I'm not going to shortchange "transparency" as a concept. In practice, though, what is transparent to one person might not be the same to another, as we are all on our own quests to reach audio Nirvana.

I've switched my focus to more Resolving & Musical, as opposed to Transparent and Neutral. It's not that you can't have both, but the former, I believe, are less of concepts than the latter.

A few days ago, my buddy - the same guy I replicated his speaker choice, in the Andra IIs (his room has been treated; mine has not) - dropped a fully loaded Lampizator Golden Gate into his system. Instead of his wonky Class D amp, I brought over the TToby as the amp of choice.

Well, versus the DAVE, which I also had on hand, we were very hard pressed to declare a winner with timbre accuracy, timing, instrument separation and speed. However, the Golden Gate was simply more holographic. So much so, that I'm sitting 10ft away from the speakers, and certain passages shocked me when it felt that I could reach out and touch the sound of an instrument. It was like turning on a light bulb in the room.

I then swapped out his $600 speaker cables for my $100 pair of Blue Jean cables. No difference. None that anybody could detect.

Yes, with the DAVE in-line it was extraordinary, too, only the massive amount of depth that was there seemed like 2D depth, as if the deep sound was a photo of the instrument, recessed in the sound field, opposed to the actual instrument.

I'm not saying that the DAVE sounded dead, only that the Golden Gate sounded more musical, for better or for worse, in the grand scheme of things.

Later we put his Class D amp back in, and it imparted a veil over the Lampi just as it did the DAVE.

I don't know. This is merely an anecdote. I know that the Chord DAVE is the best DAC on the planet for listening to headphones. Otherwise, now that I've changed focus, I'm not sure what else the DAVE is when it comes to speaker reproduction.

EDIT: to change screw-ups from typing on my phone.

 

[JaZZ]

I did some search for the Lampizator Golden Gate, and although I know nothing about it apart from some component listing and review excerpts, I'm sure that it sounds great. I just had to see the tubes and the fine (silver-centric) components to think: Yes, that has to sound exceptional.
 
Actually I was going to reply it may have been a case of synergy, with the DAVE as just second best in this configuration, but now I think I understand even your differentiation between «resolving» and «transparent».
 
I think I would nevertheless prefer the DAVE for my sonic ideals, since I'm more or less done with tubes, as much as I like their characteristic. To my ears the DAVE's most striking strength is its imaging of spatial depth – thanks to the fantastic small-signal resolution. The Golden Gate with its even more pronounced depth (as you say) and an (assumed) liquid-smoothness making it more «musical» and ear-friendlier than even a DAVE would most likely be too much ear-friendliness and spectacularity to my taste. I simply cannot imagine that the DAVE's simplicistic output stage, its groundbreakingly low harmonic distortion and noise modulation figures can be beaten when it comes to accuracy and transparency. So it seems the DAVE is not the best DAC for everyone, although better than most nonetheless.
 
However, I don't think transparency is the culprit, rather the way to get there: Combined with ultimate accuracy it may (still) be too much unforgivingness to some ears, although to my pair it is absolutely very, very friendly.
 
(A lot of speculation involved, but I hope you get what I mean.)