MG 20.7 era

[Happy]

7 minutes ago, generichs said:

Many have probably heard bloom but not identified it.  It is part of the physical property of sound that gives weight to sound.  I don't think it can be measured by frequency response.  In fact I'm not sure they have worked out a way to measure it, that's why many are shooting in the dark with audio design. 

 

Any technology incorrectly applied can remove bloom.  I have yet to hear DSP correctly applied.  If others are hearing bloom in their DSP systems, good luck to them.  Each should enjoy music in their own way.  I'm just saying DSP is not a panacea.  Well, no technology is a panacea.  I don't peddle technology.  My policy is plug it in and I'll have a listen, preferably in my own system.

 

Agreed with the last bit. I sort of feel that I get what you mean by the bloom but still disagree that DSP should somehow kill it. If DSP is to assist with precise reproduction of a recording, there is no reason as to why it should kill this bloom thing which would presumably have subsisted in the recording. Unless we assume that the distortions caused by the listener's room is responsible for creation of this bloom which did not exist in the recording.

[WorkinClassAudio]

15 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

Unless we assume that the distortions caused by the listener's room is responsible for creation of this bloom which did not exist in the recording.

This is like the old digital vs analogue argument.  ie. "If it is heard in analogue and not in digital, then it is an analogue distortion."

 

DSP is Digital Signal Processing.  It has an affect on the signal, therefore, like everything else in the chain it affects the sound.  Everything is supposed provide "precise reproduction of a recording" but it doesn't.  If everything did precisely reproduce sound we would've had perfect sound forever ages ago.   

 

Bloom is in recordings.  Even digital recordings.  Listen for the gestalt, not to the minutia. Like I said in my comment, bloom has been unfashionable for so long, many don't know what it sounds like.   Fortunately, in recent hifi shows more and more exhibits have bloom, so I am optimistic we are headed in the right direction.   

[Happy]

CD precision and DSP are totally different paradigms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghost4man]

1 hour ago, generichs said:

Many have probably heard bloom but not identified it.  It is part of the physical property of sound that gives weight to sound.  I don't think it can be measured by frequency response.  In fact I'm not sure they have worked out a way to measure it, that's why many are shooting in the dark with audio design. 

 

Any technology incorrectly applied can remove bloom.  I have yet to hear DSP correctly applied.  If others are hearing bloom in their DSP systems, good luck to them.  Each should enjoy music in their own way.  I'm just saying DSP is not a panacea.  Well, no technology is a panacea.  I don't peddle technology.  My policy is plug it in and I'll have a listen, preferably in my own system.

If it can't be measured and is difficult to describe then I question whether it exists or not. It just seems like another fanciful term. 

 

DSPs do have value in a system like mine because it means I can go 3 way as opposed to leaving it 2 way. The Tympani 1ds were already a killer system and dare I say adding the true ribbon will make it better. Hopefully. The alternative without it is to completely rebuild the XO. 

 

Cheers Ozzie 

[Martykt]

1 hour ago, ghost4man said:

If it can't be measured and is difficult to describe then I question whether it exists or not. It just seems like another fanciful term. 

 

DSPs do have value in a system like mine because it means I can go 3 way as opposed to leaving it 2 way. The Tympani 1ds were already a killer system and dare I say adding the true ribbon will make it better. Hopefully. The alternative without it is to completely rebuild the XO. 

 

Cheers Ozzie 

 

Of course it can be measured.

You just need the proper equipment to measure  and the knowledge to extrapolate those results.

(That's if the right equipment exists to measure the specific element in the sound that you want to measure.)

To question if something exists because it is difficult to describe or because someone doesn't feel the need to go to great lengths to measure it doesn't help anything.

 

DSP's and similar technology are not everything to everyone and are compromises just like passive crossovers are compromises.

Everyone is different and will focus on different things in the sound and while for you the benefits of a DSP out-way the areas that it detracts from in the sound for me I would find a DSP would find it would detract more than benefit so would not want a DSP unit in my system.

 

I quite appreciate what @generichs is trying to achieve in his system and feel that trying to understand what Peter means when he is talking about "Bloom" would be more beneficial than calling something fanciful.

[WorkinClassAudio]

Actually, I can describe "bloom" but I can't be bothered.  It is an audio term and has been mentioned for decades in numerous audio reviews.  I am just staggered that at this time in audio history I should have to describe it to give it gravitas.  

 

What prompted my initial comment was that there are suggestions in forums for putting in a DSP to get better sound.  I question whether better sound is a given when using a DSP, and I definitely have no interest in putting a DSP on my Maggies.  

 

 

[ghost4man]

1 hour ago, Martykt said:

 

Of course it can be measured.

You just need the proper equipment to measure  and the knowledge to extrapolate those results.

(That's if the right equipment exists to measure the specific element in the sound that you want to measure.)

To question if something exists because it is difficult to describe or because someone doesn't feel the need to go to great lengths to measure it doesn't help anything.

 

DSP's and similar technology are not everything to everyone and are compromises just like passive crossovers are compromises.

Everyone is different and will focus on different things in the sound and while for you the benefits of a DSP out-way the areas that it detracts from in the sound for me I would find a DSP would find it would detract more than benefit so would not want a DSP unit in my system.

 

I quite appreciate what @generichs is trying to achieve in his system and feel that trying to understand what Peter means when he is talking about "Bloom" would be more beneficial than calling something fanciful.

Guys if you insist that it can be measured then the onus rests with you to:-

 

1. Describe what it is. 

2. Refer to empirical testing. 

 

We rely upon this science to take away opinion and angst. So for ignorant people like myself can you refer to the science that gives credence to what bloom is in terms of measurement. 

 

For me personally a DSP is the only solution to having a system which is currently 2 way with the aim to go 3 way. This means going active. I have no expectations whatsoever. I think it has promise doing this. I don't think that what I am doing is unreasonable. I would suggest that any Maggie owner would jump at the opportunity to do this. It will take some experimenting I am sure. Frankly if it comes off then I'm predicting it will leave a pair of 20.7s in the dust. 

 

Cheers Ozzie 

[Martykt]

58 minutes ago, ghost4man said:

Guys if you insist that it can be measured then the onus rests with you to:-

 

1. Describe what it is. 

2. Refer to empirical testing. 

 

We rely upon this science to take away opinion and angst. So for ignorant people like myself can you refer to the science that gives credence to what bloom is in terms of measurement. 

 

For me personally a DSP is the only solution to having a system which is currently 2 way with the aim to go 3 way. This means going active. I have no expectations whatsoever. I think it has promise doing this. I don't think that what I am doing is unreasonable. I would suggest that any Maggie owner would jump at the opportunity to do this. It will take some experimenting I am sure. Frankly if it comes off then I'm predicting it will leave a pair of 20.7s in the dust. 

 

Cheers Ozzie 

 

No I don't think there is any need to supply empirical evidence for the simple reason that this is a Showcase Your System thread.

I think it's great to understand what attributes in the sound the OP values in building his system.  

I think it would be great to see this happen more in these showcase threads so as to understand why a particular system has been built with it's particular component choices etc.

The term "Bloom" is a descriptor not necessarily something that requires scientific research.

 

@generichs has put in a lot of effort in building his system and I personally think it's coming up really well with what Peter is trying to achieve.

 

[WorkinClassAudio]

Ozzie, you should try to put together a system you enjoy listening to.  Not one which is vindicated by 'science' and 'measurements' and is better than someone else's.  The last thing to aim for is that it's better than someone else's.  You will never be happy with the sound of your system taking that approach.  

 

I don't care if other's have better system's than mine.  It's about enjoying the sound of your system, and knowing what sound you like.  I have heard many great systems.  Whether I would want to live with the sound of those systems is another matter.  The sound of my system in my room is to minimize the audio artifacts (hifi sound) and create a natural musical experience.  I pretty much have that now.         

[Newman]

So far the only definition we have for bloom is "whatever isn't there whenever DSP is added", which isn't a definition, it's a bias.

 

I agree that it has been used for decades by audio writers, but it is up there with the glossary of mealy-mouthed, self-serving myth-making BS words that we are all better off without.

 

The DSP-related comments give me the strong impression that it is related to bass sufficiency. Some DSP implementations are a bit lean, removing unwanted bass resonances that might have been contributing, however imperfectly, to the overall fullness of sound, but not replacing it with enough amplitude of less-resonant bass.

[WorkinClassAudio]

 

@Newman you display bias yourself.  Create a Showcase for your own system and post your technobabble hate there.  Don't ruin other people's system showcases with your hate.    

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 hour ago, generichs said:

 

@Newman you display bias yourself.  Create a Showcase for your own system and post your technobabble hate there.  Don't ruin other people's system showcases with your hate.    

 

I have had the pleasure of listening to this system thanks to @generichs kind hospitality. It sounds amazing. 

The discussion about bloom, dsp etc is interesting but this is not the place for it

[WorkinClassAudio]

Since the GTG I have done some tweaks which have made good improvements to the sound to make it better nuanced.  I had been having problems with balance.  That has been solved by switching the pre/pwr interconnect to the DAC.  I bought SR Atmosphere Level 3 which has a locking XLR plug so it can be locked onto the preamp.  I think ARC preamp sockets need a locking XLR plug as they continually drift out if not locked on.  I had to continuously go and push the plug into the socket to make sure I was getting a good connection.

 

The SGR rack does lower the noise floor and float the sound better.  I expect it to improve once I install the additional isolator pucks under the pwr amp.  Those are in transit apparently. 

 

Just put in Audioquest Diamond digital interconnect to replace 30yo Bruson digital cable.  The Bruson is actually quite good.  Straight out of the box the Audioquest Diamond sounded better.  I think Audioquest are currently having a good run with digital cables.  Their vodka ethernet is also good.  A good thing to remember in cable is not to mismatch them with the system.  The first thing I noticed with the Audioquest Diamond is the lush treble.  Not bright, lush.  This being a signature of well executed silver cables. 

 

I don't think the DWM Woofers at the GTG had been properly calibrated.  There was a time constraint in setting up.  The GTG sound was a bit crude compared to where it is now. 

 

I still have the rebuilt Onyx to come and that will probably be it for now. 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2016 by generichs

[ghost4man]

6 hours ago, generichs said:

 

@Newman you display bias yourself.  Create a Showcase for your own system and post your technobabble hate there.  Don't ruin other people's system showcases with your hate.    

That is harsh and uncalled for. No one denies the fact that we ALL show bias in our own way. No one is ruining anything for you other than perhaps your own ego. I have witnessed and read much commentary when it comes to GTGs and it is almost always accompanied by the customary thank you's and proclamations of how good the system sounded. 

 

How about for once people just be honest and tell them truth. Guess what - the system won't sound fantastic all the time to every ear that listens. The best thing you can do as a friend is just be honest and tell the person hey mate perhaps you could improve the sound by doing this as opposed to just lying for the sake of politeness. 

 

@generichs step back a little bit, put your ego to one side. You were called out on the concept of bloom which you insist exists but by the responses so far is not as intuitive as you would have the readers believe. It's not that hard to respond. 

 

 @Newman s comment reflects what many people that I have spoken to who have  made similar comments about the nature of the industry where technobabble reigns supreme all for the sake of selling something to next person who is convinced that if they make a slight change to the system by dipping the amplifier in yak semen then it will improve. Apparently that's the secret trick to get an amplifier worth 20k to sound better. Are you kidding me. 

 

End of rant. 

[WorkinClassAudio]

1 hour ago, ghost4man said:

End of rant. 

Good.  I hope you find peace and move on.  I take it you will be doing a Showcase and a GTG and the people who attend your GTG will be honest with you and tell you there is no bloom in your system.  Obviously, those who attended my GTG were deaf polite folk.  Or maybe they were too drunk to hear properly   Hang on a sec..that audio reviewer who heard my system some time ago, was probably also being polite.  I saw him the other day..polite fella. 

 

I did understate the improvement the Audioquest Diamond made to my digital setup.  Obviously the Bruson digital cable was a bottleneck.  Removing the bottleneck has taken the digital sound up another level. 

 

The sound is fuller, more three dimensional, with better timbre and low level detail.  Best of all the detail is liquid and has a flow with no etching.  Also more dynamic slam and dare I say it..more bloom.  More bloom means more weight across all frequencies.  If I had upgraded my DAC for a lot more money and obtained this level of improvement, I would probably be satisfied..No I wouldn't

 

The moral is upgrade the bottleneck first.  I did not think my digital setup was capable of this level of performance.  Hell I didn't even think my system was capable of this sound.  Who said planars don't have weight or dynamics?  

 

[Newman]

9 hours ago, generichs said:

 

@Newman you display bias yourself.  Create a Showcase for your own system and post your technobabble hate there.  Don't ruin other people's system showcases with your hate.    

 

Yes, bit harsh, no idea what you are on about, frankly. How you can be so thin-skinned when I offered zero criticisms or negatives about your system is beyond me. I only offered a plea for less wooly descriptors for hifi sound, and a possible explanation for your experiences with DSP. Hating on me for that is remarkable, really.

[WorkinClassAudio]

11 hours ago, Newman said:

So far the only definition we have for bloom is "whatever isn't there whenever DSP is added", which isn't a definition, it's a bias.

 

I agree that it has been used for decades by audio writers, but it is up there with the glossary of mealy-mouthed, self-serving myth-making BS words that we are all better off without.

These are hate words.  I used the word which you label as being a bias.  It is not a bias, nor is it BS.  

 

Your explanation for my experiences with DSP does not explain anything, except that DSP is not always well executed,   I have heard DSP systems with plenty of bass but no bloom.  But ofcourse that is just bullshit bias.  

  

[andyr]

24 minutes ago, generichs said:

 

Your explanation for my experiences with DSP does not explain anything, except that DSP is not always well executed,   I have heard DSP systems with plenty of bass but no bloom.

  

 

Mmmm, Peter, much as I didn't want to be drawn into this argument - given you have recently heard my system, I have to suspect that my system is one that you didn't hear any of this good 'bloom' you talk about?  (Only plenty of bass  - which, IMO, has nothing to do with DSP and everything to do with the low-end response of my phono stage and the way the miniDSP unit is programmed!   )

 

In terms of 'bloom' ... last weekend I had over someone who plays a stringed instrument.  When I found out that fact, a couple of months ago, I asked him if he'd care to come over and tell me how well my system reproduced "string tone" ... and last weekend he was able to make it.    Amongst others, we played Jackie du Pre's rendition of the Elgar cello concerto and (apart from the embarrassingly high level of surface noise on this 45-year old LP!  ) he said he had never heard the cello sound as good from an LP since he had heard it delivered through Quad 57s, driven by Quad amps with a Decca cart ... over 40 years ago.

 

So, naturally, I appreciated that comment ... and, as I would associate your concept of 'bloom' with a reproduced stringed instrument sounding like a live string instrument ... I think my system must have this 'bloom'?  Unless 'bloom' to you is something entirely different to correctly reproducing stringed instruments?

 

Andy

 

[Newman]

Good luck Andy.

[WorkinClassAudio]

@andyr Good to hear from you Andy.  I think you can get correct timbre without bloom. But bloom is not really the issue.  We need to go back to how this stupid argument started.

 

I get all sorts of suggestions for tweaks in this Showcase.  I take 'em or leave 'em.  It was suggested I put a minidsp on my 20.7 to improve it.  DSP and the mini ones are being put forward as cures or improvements for all sorts of things.  They seem to be the buzz technology.  I don't think they are a panacea and I said so.  Furthermore, all the incidents of how this technology has been executed has not impressed me.  I said so.  The reason why I do not see this technology as a panacea and why I am not impressed with it, is irrelevant.  Remove the word "bloom" and insert the letter "x".  It's the x-factor that is missing from DSP/minidsp.  I said I was not interested in adding a minidsp.  That should have been end of story. 

 

Instead I was being pilloried for disagreeing with the suggestion, with implications that I don't know what I am talking about.  Being asked to justify my view with scientific measurements, and asked to provide a detailed description of bloom.    

 

Well, what I do know is what I hear in my system and my experience with minidsp/DSP systems.  I'm not going lie and let people beat me down into saying what I hear does not exist.  What I hear is that DSP and minidsps are not a panacea.  I have yet to hear this technology work properly.  As some keep saying, we all hear things differently and value different things in music reproduction.  

 

What your musician friend heard impressed him, that's fine.  You are happy, that's fine.  You don't need bloom to get correct timbre.  Bloom gives timbre body and a three dimensional presence.  It will also create the soundstage formed by the timbre.  I thought your system sounded good first time around.  I thought you went backwards second time around.  It seems you have improved the sound since then, and I would not expect less from you.

 

Martin has a good system and it is capable of bloom.  I pointed bloom out to him.  He will know what I mean.  

 

I have no further interest in this argument and further postings on this argument can only be seen as trolling.     

 

PS.  The other word for 'bloom' might be 'air'.  This being a feature of valve gear.  My ARC preamp has loads of bloom/air.  Martin has a valve pwr amp, which probably gives him the bloom.  I heard a SS preamp in my system and it did not have the 'air' which the ARC has, but it had a tighter presentation with more bass slam.  I combined both sounds by linking the ARC with the AVM.  

Edited October 1, 2016 by generichs

[ghost4man]

@generichs 

 

A good article  worth reading to clarify terminology. Bloom is a descriptor. We are trying to use language to communicate how we subjectively interpret what we listen to. To then say that a particular piece has bloom is very much limited to the observer and it should be noted that it always accompanies listening to the same piece via multiple sources to make a comparison. Whether that can be measured is not something that seems possible. To say you can measure openness and air seems counterintuitive although one can easily conceptualize something as having more air. 

 

There is a but in this however. Reproducing real music that reflects what a live performance is like is the key. 

 

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/bbs/stereophile_audio-glossary.html

[andyr]

10 hours ago, generichs said:

@andyr Good to hear from you Andy.  I think you can get correct timbre without bloom.

 

What your musician friend heard impressed him, that's fine.  You are happy, that's fine.  You don't need bloom to get correct timbre.  Bloom gives timbre body and a three dimensional presence.  It will also create the soundstage formed by the timbre.  I thought your system sounded good first time around.  I thought you went backwards second time around.  It seems you have improved the sound since then, and I would not expect less from you.

 

Martin has a good system and it is capable of bloom.  I pointed bloom out to him.  He will know what I mean.  

 

I have no further interest in this argument and further postings on this argument can only be seen as trolling.     

 

PS.  The other word for 'bloom' might be 'air'.  This being a feature of valve gear.  My ARC preamp has loads of bloom/air.  Martin has a valve pwr amp, which probably gives him the bloom.  I heard a SS preamp in my system and it did not have the 'air' which the ARC has, but it had a tighter presentation with more bass slam.  I combined both sounds by linking the ARC with the AVM.  

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

On 30th Sep you also said this:  "Many have probably heard bloom but not identified it.  It is part of the physical property of sound that gives weight to sound.".

 

Given that with your comments which I've quoted above - including the one I bolded - I think I know what you are getting at, with 'bloom'.  It is exactly that sense of body and palpability that you can get from a good tube component.  Given that's what you like ... can I suggest you have a listen to Duc's (@lovetube) gorgeous-sounding tube phono stage.  I think it will give you more of what you want, compared to your ss phono stage - even if it is a John Curl design!

 

 

Regards,

Andy

 

[Martykt]

1 hour ago, andyr said:

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

On 30th Sep you also said this:  "Many have probably heard bloom but not identified it.  It is part of the physical property of sound that gives weight to sound.".

 

Given that with your comments which I've quoted above - including the one I bolded - I think I know what you are getting at, with 'bloom'.  It is exactly that sense of body and palpability that you can get from a good tube component.  Given that's what you like ... can I suggest you have a listen to Duc's (@lovetube) gorgeous-sounding tube phono stage.  I think it will give you more of what you want, compared to your ss phono stage - even if it is a John Curl design!

 

 

Regards,

Andy

 

 

Yes Duc's phono stage is very good.

 If you haven't had the opportunity to listen to one you should do so @generichs, it really is worth hearing. 

[WorkinClassAudio]

@andyr Thanks Andy and Martin.  Unfortunately all my audio funds are committed at the moment.  I have an Onyx rebuild still to pay.  Are you using Duc's phono stage?  I did have a tube phono stage when I was young and had the energy to roll tubes, but I gave up that path as being too much work.  That's why I also gave up on tube power amps.  I no longer want to solder resistors.  There was always tube rush to deal with, especially with MC cartridges.  I'm at the stage in my life when I just want to have a glass of chateau cardboard and listen to music.  Tweaking equipment racks in easy work compared to baby sitting tube gear.  

 

I have the ARC pre-amp under sufferance.  I had a buzz in the right channel, so I bought a set of four 6H30Pi and it turned out the buzz was due to some other minor thing in the system.  So now I have four 6H30Pi's sitting in a drawer.  Tubes do that to you.  

 

My next component upgrade will probably be a receiver with the record player built in.  I think it's called downsizing.  A lot of old farts are doing that.  

 

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by generichs

[WorkinClassAudio]

The Koetsu Onyx rebuild has been completed.  It sounds like new.  I wish I had down this before I started changing phonostages.  I sounds much livelier and fuller than the Garrott Bros retips.  I wish I had done a rebuild before I traded in my Threshold phonostage.  I suspect the deterioration was the cartridge, not the phonostage.  

 

The rebuild took 8 weeks from the day I sent it to Melvin Ang, SE Asian distributor for Koetsu, for rebuild.  I had to pay via Paypal, which incurred a fee of $14.25.  The total cost was still a lot cheaper than buying an equivalent in another locally available cartridge.