what’s your philosophy of voicing a system?

[Nick B]

I've been in this hobby for 35+ years and it's only the last few years where I've been able to get very good sound and "dial in" my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I've adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I've learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don't want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don't. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company's power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there's a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I'm wondering what methodologies and practices you've employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.

[Jack]

One thing you may find out soon is that a different speaker and especially a different room will have you scratching your head trying to figure out what went wrong.  The room at the house in SC has had me doing that for over two years. If/when the room addition is done there I will have to start the process all over again. 

[P.I.]

I've been in this hobby for 35+ years and it's only the last few years where I've been able to get very good sound and "dial in" my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I've adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I've learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don't want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don't. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company's power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there's a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I'm wondering what methodologies and practices you've employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.

I don't even start "voicing" a system until I get the room in control and the physical location of the speakers more or less finalized.  I do this knowing that "that final location" will undoubtedly change when all of the cabling and finding the final listening position is done.

Cabling is a cut and try procedure that can take a long time and is individual to the gear it used with.  I have never seen a cable company that can meet the needs of every piece of gear.  No one-size fits all.  I have a design SQ target etched in my brain and whatever cable (or piece of gear for that matter) gets me closer is a keeper until and unless something else sounds better.  When I get something new, I try it on EVERY piece of gear to find the best application.

All of this takes time and lots of $$$.  That is, unless you do the cable lend/loan thing.  There is The Cable Company and others and almost every cable manufacturer offers a full refund 30 day audition time.

Ultimate SQ is a process and most of that process is cut and try.

[steve]

I've been in this hobby for 35+ years and it's only the last few years where I've been able to get very good sound and "dial in" my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I've adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I've learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don't want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don't. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company's power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there's a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I'm wondering what methodologies and practices you've employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.

Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.

I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.

1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.

2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.

To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.

3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.

4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.

5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.

What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.

A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.

B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.

There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.

I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.

That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.

With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.

Cheers

steve

[Nick B]

One thing you may find out soon is that a different speaker and especially a different room will have you scratching your head trying to figure out what went wrong.  The room at the house in SC has had me doing that for over two years. If/when the room addition is done there I will have to start the process all over again.

I thought I was moving, but that didn't happen....it might though at some point. I'm hoping the speakers don't get lost on the way over. It's a big ocean. One of these days I'm going to have to dive in to the world of room acoustics 😅

[Jack]

Don't think they'll get lost just won't get in a hurry based on what I was told my another small importer of an Italian brand of speakers.

[Nick B]

I've been in this hobby for 35+ years and it's only the last few years where I've been able to get very good sound and "dial in" my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I've adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I've learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don't want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don't. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company's power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there's a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I'm wondering what methodologies and practices you've employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.

Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.

I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.

1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.

2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.

To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.

3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.

4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.

5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.

What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.

A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.

B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.

There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.

I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.

That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.

With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.

Cheers

steve

Hi Steve. Yes, it's fun, but would even be more fun if I wouldn't spend as much 💰 💰 on this hobby! Thanks for the detailed response and from your perspective as a designer. As to your comments on components, mine are overall quite synergistic. I do have speakers coming that have the AMT tweeters. I've been quite happy withe the Fritz Carreras, but that beryllium tweeter can be harsh at times. Beyond that, I'm curious about another amp although the AVA SET 120 is a wonderful amp for the money.

[Nick B]

I've been in this hobby for 35+ years and it's only the last few years where I've been able to get very good sound and "dial in" my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I've adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I've learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don't want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don't. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company's power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there's a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I'm wondering what methodologies and practices you've employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.

I don't even start "voicing" a system until I get the room in control and the physical location of the speakers more or less finalized.  I do this knowing that "that final location" will undoubtedly change when all of the cabling and finding the final listening position is done.

Cabling is a cut and try procedure that can take a long time and is individual to the gear it used with.  I have never seen a cable company that can meet the needs of every piece of gear.  No one-size fits all.  I have a design SQ target etched in my brain and whatever cable (or piece of gear for that matter) gets me closer is a keeper until and unless something else sounds better.  When I get something new, I try it on EVERY piece of gear to find the best application.

All of this takes time and lots of $$$.  That is, unless you do the cable lend/loan thing.  There is The Cable Company and others and almost every cable manufacturer offers a full refund 30 day audition time.

Ultimate SQ is a process and most of that process is cut and try.

Well, I've never tackled room acoustics, but did stumble onto a better position for the speakers recently. That was because I had to move them for house pics when I listed the house for sale. I'd hate to travel down the road of different cables as I really like the Wywires and it cost me a bit to get the full loom. I don't think I've tried borrowing cables from the Cable Company. I rely on comments from select members here and then on AC and lastly on reviews. I have returned equipment on rare occasions that I haven't liked.

[steve]

I've been in this hobby for 35+ years and it's only the last few years where I've been able to get very good sound and "dial in" my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I've adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I've learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don't want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don't. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company's power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there's a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I'm wondering what methodologies and practices you've employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.

Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.

I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.

1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.

2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.

To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.

3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.

4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.

5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.

What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.

A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.

B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.

There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.

I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.

That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.

With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.

Cheers

steve

Hi Steve. Yes, it's fun, but would even be more fun if I wouldn't spend as much 💰 💰 on this hobby! Thanks for the detailed response and from your perspective as a designer. As to your comments on components, mine are overall quite synergistic. I do have speakers coming that have the AMT tweeters. I've been quite happy withe the Fritz Carreras, but that beryllium tweeter can be harsh at times. Beyond that, I'm curious about another amp although the AVA SET 120 is a wonderful amp for the money.

I also did not care for beryllium. Wow, now your talking with the AMTs. Any chance down the road you might
replace the beryllium with an AMT? That would be an interesting experiment.

cheers

steve

[Nick B]

I've been in this hobby for 35+ years and it's only the last few years where I've been able to get very good sound and "dial in" my system. Most of that has been accomplished by listening to guys here who are smarter and more experienced in audio than me. As I continue to get improved sound, I've adopted a general philosophy of using a tube preamp, a solid state amp, excellent AC filtration and using looms of power cords and cables. I've learned quite a bit about tube rolling and the huge difference it can make simply by trying different 6ns7 nos tubes and 5u4c and variant rectifier tubes. For years I had harsh upper mids, partly due to listening to bad recordings, not having any room treatments and less than stellar wires. Nowadays, I lean toward the warm side of neutral. I only want to voice my system based on the preamp tubes that I use. I don't want to get into mixing and matching different brands of power cords and cables to fix problems. Either the power cords and cables work in unison to present the music properly or they don't. I realize this can get a bit pricey going with one company's power cords or cables, but it makes the most sense to me and is a simpler methodology to evaluate. Admittedly, I rely on some reviews in addition to members opinions and experience here. If there's a question of a speaker, amp, dac etc being described as on the lean side, I will likely avoid it. So I'm wondering what methodologies and practices you've employed to dial in your system or is it more flexible and desirable to mix and match.

Is not this fun Nick? Just kidding. Get's pretty expensive, time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
One can only do what one can do.

I have a particular philosophy I adhere to.

1. My goal is a perfect audio system. By perfect I mean hearing what is recorded. The result is stunning on
many selections.

2. I don't want power cords, fuses, power transformers, rectifier tubes to affect the musical quality.
Allowing such parts to manipulate the sound does give one variables to deal with, but also degrades
the overall maximum musical quality one is able to obtain. I realize $ can be a limitation for anyone. I
spent gobs of money in R&D, so I understand.

To isolate said parts listed requires robust power supply filtering stages, as well as proper quality and
size values of parts.

3. I do a preliminary of the room acoustics, minimizing huge nodes.

4. I want to mate wires, plugs, jacks, and other parts for minimum interactions and distortion.

5. Once all the components, parts, once the system is accurate, I once again deal with the room acoustics.
Why? Because once the system is accurate, then one can relatively compare how much damage the
components cause VS how much damage the room causes.

What I found was the components, even parts are just as bad as the room in terms of damaging the music,
if not more. How can that be? It has something to do with bandwidth of the mode/frequency abnormality.

A. Many of the nodes created by the room are 1/3 octave or less in bandwidth. According to RANE, those
tend to be not noticed even though several db deep/raised.

B. Although the +/- frequency response deviation of each components are less, the deviations cover the entire
audio band, many many octaves. A slight tweak in the highs affects the deepest bass and visa versa due
to changing all the harmonics vs the fundamental frequencies.

There are also other problems such as spacial characteristics, grunge, inter-modulation distortion, etc.

I would suggest the most Difficult problem to correct in a room are the low frequency modes in a room.
That can take lot of time and efforts to minimize.

That is what I did to obtain excellent musical quality.

With that said, typically I would obtain and keep the best sound quality component "A" and exchange the least
quality component "B" for better, even if "B" component is the most expensive. I have seen over and
over someone who rids the best quality component because they did not want to rid of "B" component that
was more expensive. Not the way to go in the long run.

Cheers

steve

Hi Steve. Yes, it's fun, but would even be more fun if I wouldn't spend as much 💰 💰 on this hobby! Thanks for the detailed response and from your perspective as a designer. As to your comments on components, mine are overall quite synergistic. I do have speakers coming that have the AMT tweeters. I've been quite happy withe the Fritz Carreras, but that beryllium tweeter can be harsh at times. Beyond that, I'm curious about another amp although the AVA SET 120 is a wonderful amp for the money.

I also did not care for beryllium. Wow, now your talking with the AMTs. Any chance down the road you might
replace the beryllium with an AMT? That would be an interesting experiment.

cheers

steve

It's a long story, but in a month (hopefully) I'll have replacement drivers for one AMT speaker that was damaged and a different pair also with AMT tweeters. Whichever pair sounds best, I'll keep and sell the other two. I expect the beryllium tweeter won't make the cut, but the Carreras are terrific speakers and Fritz is a great guy.

[steve]

"It's a long story, but in a month (hopefully) I'll have replacement drivers for one AMT speaker that was damaged and a different pair also with AMT tweeters. Whichever pair sounds best, I'll keep and sell the other two. I expect the beryllium tweeter won't make the cut, but the Carreras are terrific speakers and Fritz is a great guy."

Unclutter the string a little.

I don't doubt the Fritz speakers are good. Heard very good things about him and his speakers. I concur and
am anticipating how the "shootout" ends between the AMTs, and vs berylliums.

Inquiring minds want to know your results.   

cheers

steve

[Jack]

Based on my experience with two of the speakers Nick is dealing  with the AMT's will win out.  At least they did for me. Haven't personally heard the third pair but the dealer/former US distributor who most would be familiar with says the newer larger AMT in the third speaker makes it the winner. Nick will get the chance to find out.

[Nick B]

Well, this has been going on for a while trying to get the 7" replacement drivers. They're hopefully on a steamship somewhere in the Atlantic. I'm going to have to find someone in so. Utah or Vegas to do the soldering. I don't want to mess with it and want excellent quality solder used. I've read very good things about the AMT tweeters. I might have been moving too and that would've complicated things a bit more.

I will advise how it all turns out.

[James Edward]

Based on my experience with two of the speakers Nick is dealing  with the AMT's will win out.  At least they did for me. Haven't personally heard the third pair but the dealer/former US distributor who most would be familiar with says the newer larger AMT in the third speaker makes it the winner. Nick will get the chance to find out.

I do love the sound of an AMT tweeter- the fullness/sweetness of a soft dome with just more of everything- I guess those folds do something special- they certainly play loudly without strain. Yes- I'm guilty of wanting a speaker that crosses the 100 db barrier without a hint of strain.
My Legacy Focus SE AMT's had the best high end in my opinion, but the bass overwhelmed my room. In the right room, I'd get them again in a heartbeat.

[Nick B]

Based on my experience with two of the speakers Nick is dealing  with the AMT's will win out.  At least they did for me. Haven't personally heard the third pair but the dealer/former US distributor who most would be familiar with says the newer larger AMT in the third speaker makes it the winner. Nick will get the chance to find out.

I do love the sound of an AMT tweeter- the fullness/sweetness of a soft dome with just more of everything- I guess those folds do something special- they certainly play loudly without strain. Yes- I'm guilty of wanting a speaker that crosses the 100 db barrier without a hint of strain.
My Legacy Focus SE AMT's had the best high end in my opinion, but the bass overwhelmed my room. In the right room, I'd get them again in a heartbeat.

I guess I'm in for quite a treat with the AMT. I do crank it up, so playing without strain yet revealing detail and having the tonal character you describe seems just perfect. As to Legacy, I sure respect Bill Duddleston and his designs. Years ago I tried one of his speakers end it didn't work out. Had to send it back and used FedEx who promptly trashed one of the speakers. FedEx ended up paying and Bill was able to refinish the beautiful wood. He was justifiably a bit ticked off, but I was able to handle it and get it paid quickly.