I found myself totally sunk mentally into the “quest for perfection” in the realm of hi end audio ever since the beginning of 2009. The Da Vinci system, as heard by many AE buddies, has deepened my knowledge substantially on all fronts during the exchange/sharing sessions with many AE buddies. I have some very hard deep thoughts on what I had learnt from each other and would like to share here.
The quantity of “experiences” sometimes increases progressively with more confusion. One can be extremely well versed in electricity phase, acoustic treatment, and isolation of mechanical noises and speaker positioning etc but still fails to build a big picture. One can solve each problem exactly right with facts – the correctness of electrical phase say in the incident of the ORB Kyoto – no argument here. Elimination of ground noises by the Tripoint Troy and the isolation of mechanical noises by the application of SRA, again produces astonishing results across the board. But still, this may not draw us to the same listening experiences. Why is that? You can argue the room makes the biggest difference; well no argument here too. Room acoustics probably determines more than 50% of your system’s performance. That’s factual. But in my view, there is even bigger factor at work – comprehension of the big picture.
Here is the tricky part because this is where subjectivity comes into the equation. Put it this way, think of the construction of the big picture is really a function of the listeners’ priority. But most may see the big picture merely as the physical size of the soundstage. Say, for example if someone believes soundstage is the most important attribute in his/her listening criteria, spatial resolution may carry the highest priority in this school, other attributes automatically deem less important. More often that not, soundstage is the utmost priority in small room. This is the part where people with big systems in big room may not understand. Because once the disappearing act of the speakers dials in, it is possible that the listener may feel as though all walls disappear inside a small room – and this feeling yields a big sound space. Again, this is just one example.
I cannot speak for the others but now I understand clearly I need a big picture that produces the right tonal contrast. If this is not right, I don’t give a damn on soundstage or dynamic. Getting the perceived correct tonal contrast embodies one’s understanding of transients, elongation of harmonic decays and the main fundamental body of a musical note (This in turn will drag into the issue of linearity in the time domain. I shall talk about this later.) The goal is I don’t want to be drawn into any particular frequency range. I don’t want to be overly attracted to any technology of any tweeter, mid range or bass because music is supposed to be a wholesome experience. If one enjoys any particular frequency range, then you are probably chasing one particular sound favor in certain bandwidth. No one can save you, except yourself.
Getting the correct timbre or the right tonal contrast often involves the “sacrifices of quantifiable details”. One can be completely over-drawn by the fact that he can “see” or “count’ certain musical objects. If something is missing that was originally there before, they will feel extremely uncomfortable to move on. I was belonged to this school of thought during the days of Goldmund back in 2002/2003. One can define quantifiable of details as their guiding principles. In this camp, the tonal temperature is usually at the cooler end of the spectrum as heightening of quantifiable details are often achieved by raising the contrast, i.e., you see more of everything when the spotlights are turned on. The big picture will probably become too bright under most circumstances.
Up to this junction, I wish to point out that no one guiding philosophy is “more” correct than the others because this is the part where subjectivity plays a dominant element. The recent sharing of the Da Vinci system with fellow buddies here has triggered respective changes in others’ system. Charles told me his analog setup now follows very much from the idea of “bending all frequencies well without any highlights on any certain parts. His other half, for the first time, sits down and quietly enjoys one piece of LP one after another. The Tidal suite of Alecy, which I just visited over the weekend for a two-hour session, has both the skeleton and the various organs in proper places to produce a coherent organic big picture. Everything is very well rendered, balanced and convincing with subtleties. DSo’s big Cessaro horn system also turns out to be surprisingly relaxing now without the over-domineering of the upper high after the latest addition of the signature ground wires and countless moves he had taken great effort every weekend. I listened to many recordings for a straight two hours without any fatigue. Studiogrey will probably soon join the high efficiency camp too after a poisoning Da Vinci session of only one hour spinning his familiar recordings.
The buzz here is “CONVEGENCE”. There is a strong sense of convergence moving around in the community. It is unspoken but moving. Is it a maturing process or a mere coincidence? Only time will tell. But what triggers the convergence is the Da Vinci experience – a big picture that produces a well balance of tonal contrast. That’s what makes the vocal sounds like human flesh, or in the words of Studiogrey – “surreal”. We don’t have the ability to judge what is real and what is not real but what drives the convergence of opinion of the DV system (especially vocal) that results on subsequent change of system parameters in the community is a “big picture belief” behind the voicing of the Da Vinci system.
It is very important for us to understand the context and background behind my belief before taking my opinion seriously. That also means I will not draw conclusion on anything too hastily without deeper understanding of what is going on. This is especially true that the standard of the Da Vinci system has reached certain standard that is not easy to surpass.
But yesterday’s experience had me confused for a moment. If I was listening to solid state yesterday, then I don’t think I was listening to tube electronics all along with the Da Vinci system. Put it this way, if you tell me I was listening to tube electronics in the past, then I don’t think I am listening to solid state yesterday. This is the first time I feel there is a true convergence of technology between two very different camp. My father is extremely critical on tonal color commented that he is utterly surprised there is no noticeable difference on tonal color and tonal temperature between two very different schools.
I guess this impression should raise more questions. But isn’t this is a very good start?
Comments
The quantity of “experiences” sometimes increases progressively with more confusion. One can be extremely well versed in electricity phase, acoustic treatment, and isolation of mechanical noises and speaker positioning etc but still fails to build a big picture. One can solve each problem exactly right with facts – the correctness of electrical phase say in the incident of the ORB Kyoto – no argument here. Elimination of ground noises by the Tripoint Troy and the isolation of mechanical noises by the application of SRA, again produces astonishing results across the board. But still, this may not draw us to the same listening experiences. Why is that? You can argue the room makes the biggest difference; well no argument here too. Room acoustics probably determines more than 50% of your system’s performance. That’s factual. But in my view, there is even bigger factor at work – comprehension of the big picture.
Here is the tricky part because this is where subjectivity comes into the equation. Put it this way, think of the construction of the big picture is really a function of the listeners’ priority. But most may see the big picture merely as the physical size of the soundstage. Say, for example if someone believes soundstage is the most important attribute in his/her listening criteria, spatial resolution may carry the highest priority in this school, other attributes automatically deem less important. More often that not, soundstage is the utmost priority in small room. This is the part where people with big systems in big room may not understand. Because once the disappearing act of the speakers dials in, it is possible that the listener may feel as though all walls disappear inside a small room – and this feeling yields a big sound space. Again, this is just one example.
I cannot speak for the others but now I understand clearly I need a big picture that produces the right tonal contrast. If this is not right, I don’t give a damn on soundstage or dynamic. Getting the perceived correct tonal contrast embodies one’s understanding of transients, elongation of harmonic decays and the main fundamental body of a musical note (This in turn will drag into the issue of linearity in the time domain. I shall talk about this later.) The goal is I don’t want to be drawn into any particular frequency range. I don’t want to be overly attracted to any technology of any tweeter, mid range or bass because music is supposed to be a wholesome experience. If one enjoys any particular frequency range, then you are probably chasing one particular sound favor in certain bandwidth. No one can save you, except yourself.
Getting the correct timbre or the right tonal contrast often involves the “sacrifices of quantifiable details”. One can be completely over-drawn by the fact that he can “see” or “count’ certain musical objects. If something is missing that was originally there before, they will feel extremely uncomfortable to move on. I was belonged to this school of thought during the days of Goldmund back in 2002/2003. One can define quantifiable of details as their guiding principles. In this camp, the tonal temperature is usually at the cooler end of the spectrum as heightening of quantifiable details are often achieved by raising the contrast, i.e., you see more of everything when the spotlights are turned on. The big picture will probably become too bright under most circumstances.
Up to this junction, I wish to point out that no one guiding philosophy is “more” correct than the others because this is the part where subjectivity plays a dominant element. The recent sharing of the Da Vinci system with fellow buddies here has triggered respective changes in others’ system. Charles told me his analog setup now follows very much from the idea of “bending all frequencies well without any highlights on any certain parts. His other half, for the first time, sits down and quietly enjoys one piece of LP one after another. The Tidal suite of Alecy, which I just visited over the weekend for a two-hour session, has both the skeleton and the various organs in proper places to produce a coherent organic big picture. Everything is very well rendered, balanced and convincing with subtleties. DSo’s big Cessaro horn system also turns out to be surprisingly relaxing now without the over-domineering of the upper high after the latest addition of the signature ground wires and countless moves he had taken great effort every weekend. I listened to many recordings for a straight two hours without any fatigue. Studiogrey will probably soon join the high efficiency camp too after a poisoning Da Vinci session of only one hour spinning his familiar recordings.
The buzz here is “CONVEGENCE”. There is a strong sense of convergence moving around in the community. It is unspoken but moving. Is it a maturing process or a mere coincidence? Only time will tell. But what triggers the convergence is the Da Vinci experience – a big picture that produces a well balance of tonal contrast. That’s what makes the vocal sounds like human flesh, or in the words of Studiogrey – “surreal”. We don’t have the ability to judge what is real and what is not real but what drives the convergence of opinion of the DV system (especially vocal) that results on subsequent change of system parameters in the community is a “big picture belief” behind the voicing of the Da Vinci system.
It is very important for us to understand the context and background behind my belief before taking my opinion seriously. That also means I will not draw conclusion on anything too hastily without deeper understanding of what is going on. This is especially true that the standard of the Da Vinci system has reached certain standard that is not easy to surpass.
But yesterday’s experience had me confused for a moment. If I was listening to solid state yesterday, then I don’t think I was listening to tube electronics all along with the Da Vinci system. Put it this way, if you tell me I was listening to tube electronics in the past, then I don’t think I am listening to solid state yesterday. This is the first time I feel there is a true convergence of technology between two very different camp. My father is extremely critical on tonal color commented that he is utterly surprised there is no noticeable difference on tonal color and tonal temperature between two very different schools.
I guess this impression should raise more questions. But isn’t this is a very good start?
PT