Truth vs. Beauty, again...

organ

As most of you know. I got a pair of ASL SET mono blocks back in Aug that sounds wonderful. I've been listening to them non stop until last week.

So last week, I decided to hook up my Dynakit to the Klipsch and I'm still blown away. This 40+ year old amp is still kickin.

The first thing that grabbed my attention is the ultra smooth mids. Yeah, it's not the most accurate amp but it adds its own flavor that I really enjoy. It's all the icing and cream I could ask for.
Comparing the two amps is pretty simple. The ASL is more detailed, neutral and better freq extension on top.

Now the truth vs beauty thing again. I find that I can enjoy the music a lot easier on the Dynakit. It's not as accurate but the vintage sound is so addictive. The mids and overall warmth is what gets me every time. The emotions seems to come out better on the old amp. Bass is better too because of the push/pull design vs. set. I find myself enjoying the music more on the Dyna. I'm usually analizing it on my ASL.

The ASL creates a slightly colder environment that could resemble some of the forests here in Canada while the Dynakit is like a hot rain forest with plenty of rivers. Sounds strange but this is the easiest way for me to describe it.

When I have the ASL hooked up, less and less of my cd's sound that good because it's too accurate. So bad recordings really show. I found it harder to enjoy the same number of discs on my ASL as I do on my Dyna.

Is it better to downgrade instead of upgrade sometimes?

Anybody else ever have this experience with modern vs vintage gear?

Refefer

I've never had that exact experience myself, but I can definately understand. The obvious response would be that the vintage Dynakit is actually an "upgrade" for you since it lets you enjoy music more. Most people like their music a little warmer anyways, and I can imagine on a klipsch with their horns, some nice midbass goes a long way to making it more enjoyable.

Stick with what makes you enjoy music more.

One other option, of course, would be to figure out what exactly you like about the Dynakit and what you don't like, and search the market again for something new. Gotta love the quest to get the sound we want.

organ

Makes sense to me.
I'm actually not afraid to admit this... Even if I didn't purchase the ASL, I'd be perfectly happy with the Dyna. The ASL retailed for about 3k when it was still available.

I have done some research already for the king of mids and warmth and all my reading point me to amps using 300B or 2A3 output tubes. Best for mids but lacking some bass and HF extension. So far I'm going to get an ASL 'Tulip' which uses the 2A3.

So far, my dream amp would sound like the Dyna from bass to mids and like the ASL on the highs. But I can't have my cake and eat it too:(.

The scary part is, the Dyna still have room for improvements. Better/higher value caps in the power supply, new driver boards, etc. This is one amp I'll never let go.

Refefer wrote:

One other option, of course, would be to figure out what exactly you like about the Dynakit and what you don't like, and search the market again for something new. Gotta love the quest to get the sound we want.

I love the quest but it's so damn expensive. lol. I swear, this audio hobby is a disease.

Refefer

organ wrote:

I love the quest but it's so damn expensive. lol. I swear, this audio hobby is a disease.

Maybe, but this disease sure beats syphilis.

Dennis Gardner

Its the "bloom". Accuracy takes a backseat to it nearly everytime.;)

jm1

Dennis Gardner wrote:

Its the "bloom". Accuracy takes a backseat to it nearly everytime.;)

I must be one of the exceptions as I value accuracy and can't stand bloom.

Glad you found your sound.

steveinaz

You should always choose what sounds best to you--that's what this hobby is all about. Don't get caught-up in the numbers, afterall, is it really a downgrade if you like it better?---I don't think so.

A couple years ago I was so frustrated with my sound, I almost went back and bought everything I had in my 14 yr old system, because with that system I really enjoyed the music.

I had:

2 Soundcraftsmen PM-840's bridged for 600watts/rms
Bose 901 Series VI...yep, I said the "BOSE" word
Yamaha CDX-910 CD Player
Yamaha C-85 preamp
Yamaha TX-1000 tuner

zombie boy 2000

Sona... I'm thinking you need a solid source (be it a turntable or cd player), a tube preamp (for warmth, bloom, and all that luvin' magic), and a solid-state amp to give you the muscle yer cravin'.

You're too deep into this and you're drinking far too much kool-aid trying to get your Merlot fix. The Rti8's need to do the parade wave, as does the reciever.

reeltrouble1

There is beauty in accuracy as it is by its own definetion fleeting, if humans are incapable of absolute sustained accuracy, then inaccuracy can be sustained.

So then the ying and the yang.

I am the egg man.
I am RT1
coo coo ca choo

Thats my line
Now bite my hook.

RT1

reeltrouble1

Sona wrote:

You know I find this thread a bit scary and demoralizing.

I'm test driving the RTi8's with a Denon receiver DRA-697CI which I think has a fried brain. Somehow I got good sound out of the system once but I can't get it back. There's times I wonder if the frequencies are split too perfectly to the speakers. I think it's like sex with a metronome. And I might be able to accept that some MP3's will sound like **** on a good system, but my CD's gotta sound rich.

All I can say is I want the next unit I buy to come with a va va voom button and maybe power and I think a tuning dial and volume knob that I can't spin forever in one direction.

And I sure as hell don't know enough to buy vintage components in the tall grass with you big dogs. My luck, I'd end up with the amp equivalent of that Ford Pinto prone to combustion. Plus I only have the vaguest idea of what Wikipedia has to say about amps. I asked my physicist husband about some of these numbers so I can attempt to know what I'm getting and he kind of deflected my questions, then told me I didn't need a physicist I need an engineer. When pressed he tried to be a little more helpful but then I realized that it all comes down to the ears anyway. I shouldn't need to have to do math to get my music fix.

Maybe I should stand on a street corner hiding my MP3 player under my trench goin' psst I need some juice man - hook me up.

Sona

Just let me add my welcome Sona, we tend to enjoy having a lady's viewpoint around here, although we are sometimes creatins of lowest order.

Now, I would disagree with hubby, you dont need an engineer (although we have some and they are great), I do agree you need your ears, you will receive many suggestions if you would define your parameters of budget, intended use of the system, size requirement, type of music genre, and interest in audio in your life.

RT1

Again Welcome and post away.

steveinaz

Sona wrote:

You know I find this thread a bit scary and demoralizing.

I'm test driving the RTi8's with a Denon receiver DRA-697CI which I think has a fried brain. Somehow I got good sound out of the system once but I can't get it back. There's times I wonder if the frequencies are split too perfectly to the speakers. I think it's like sex with a metronome. And I might be able to accept that some MP3's will sound like **** on a good system, but my CD's gotta sound rich.

Sometimes, as you move up, you feel like you're actually moving backwards. It's a strange paradox with audio---but remember, the better your equipment gets, the more it reveals--both good AND bad. So your bad recordings will sound worse (usually) and your good recordings will sound better. Think of it in terms of a microscope.

We are so used to hearing distortion, that when we hear a system that reproduces with little distortion, the music sounds different, lacks impact, or whatever it is that was thought to be part of the signal, is gone. You'll notice this especially when you move from a receiver to a seperate power amp. Your first thought is typically "what happen to my bass?" Well, the bass is there, it's just being reproduced more accurately.

zombie boy 2000

A lil' late to the party RT, but fashionably as always...
Your input is always gold (and yes, I'm trying to make you blush...)

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48493

reeltrouble1

Thanks ZB, well, I was rip van winkleing.

RT1

mulveling

I've been wondering why audiophiles typically associate analytical, hard, harsh, bright, cold, etc...with *truth* and *accuracy*. Same with gear that only sounds good with certain audiophile recordings - that's no good and can only lead to burn-out with this hobby, IMO!

Meanwhile - warm, lush and organic gear gets labelled as colored, inaccurate, bloomy, etc. Sometimes a bad component really is way out of line, but it usually stops being enjoyable long before that point.

When it comes down to it, we don't know exactly what the recording is supposed to sound like. Music's sole purpose is to be enjoyed as much as possible, so if a certain device renders it with a more pleasing tone, I might as well call it truthful

With the gear that only sounds good on audiophile recordings - it may just be colored in such a way to favor these certain recordings. In my experience the really REALLY good systems work wonders with both great AND mediocre recordings. In fact I'd rather listen to an average recording on such a system rather than a superb recording on one of these so-called "absolute truth" systems.

With audio - newer and more expensive don't always correlate positively with performace!

F1nut

reeltrouble1 wrote:

There is beauty in accuracy as it is by its own definetion fleeting, if humans are incapable of absolute sustained accuracy, then inaccuracy can be sustained.

So then the ying and the yang.

I am the egg man.
I am RT1
coo coo ca choo

Thats my line
Now bite my hook.

RT1

That's up in your top 5 best ever!

cfrizz

This is probably one of the best posts ever put on this forum!

If I have to discard all of my music & buy new stuff that I don't like just so that it sounds good, SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG!

I am NOT going to change my music preference for equipment! I'm going to buy equipment that suits my ears & my music.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!:rolleyes: :eek:

mulveling wrote:

I've been wondering why audiophiles typically associate analytical, hard, harsh, bright, cold, etc...with *truth* and *accuracy*. Same with gear that only sounds good with certain audiophile recordings - that's no good and can only lead to burn-out with this hobby, IMO!

Meanwhile - warm, lush and organic gear gets labelled as colored, inaccurate, bloomy, etc. Sometimes a bad component really is way out of line, but it usually stops being enjoyable long before that point.

When it comes down to it, we don't know exactly what the recording is supposed to sound like. Music's sole purpose is to be enjoyed as much as possible, so if a certain device renders it with a more pleasing tone, I might as well call it truthful

With the gear that only sounds good on audiophile recordings - it may just be colored in such a way to favor these certain recordings. In my experience the really REALLY good systems work wonders with both great AND mediocre recordings. In fact I'd rather listen to an average recording on such a system rather than a superb recording on one of these so-called "absolute truth" systems.

With audio - newer and more expensive don't always correlate positively with performace!

pblanc

"What IS real?" ... Laurence Fishburn; "The Matrix"
"If it sounds good, it is good" ... Count Basie

Two people sitting in the same auditorium listening to the same live concert don't hear the same thing due to wall reflections, time delays, etc. Lets face it, we aren't pursuing reality, we are chasing an illusion. When I put an album of early Beatles on the turntable the other night, sat on the couch, and closed my eyes, it was an illusion I wanted. When I opened my eyes, the Beatles weren't really in the room with me, which is just as well since two of them would be looking pretty groady by now.
What counts obviously, is what sounds good to you, with your source, in your listening room, with your ears. I look at frequency response/SPL curves and other such data out of curiosity, but I haven't found they have much predictive value as far as my listening satisfaction goes. I have found personal recomendations on forums such as this to be a good starting point. Listening to the equipment in your own room is obviously the best test. If I like it, frankly I don't give a damn if it is "accurate" or not.

ohskigod

cfrizz wrote:

This is probably one of the best posts ever put on this forum!

If I have to discard all of my music & buy new stuff that I don't like just so that it sounds good, SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG!

I am NOT going to change my music preference for equipment! I'm going to buy equipment that suits my ears & my music.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!:rolleyes: :eek:

changing musical preference soley for your rig is goofy, your right on that. However, the flip side is my audio hobby has DRASTICALLY widened the selection of music I like.

if something sounds good on your rig that you werent into before, but then you like what you here and enjoy it, from that angle, thats a pretty good thing.

Crispycircuit

I use a lot of tube gear. I can fix it and it sounds great! But the old amps with tone controls and loudness switch are fabulous for making bad recordings fun to listen to. Tone controls give you the option of hooking up any speaker in any room and getting the most out of them. Or with our audiophile knowledge fine tuning to OUR taste. I find the Scott integrateds (tube) to really be the best. Now the Dyna PAS with some minor upgrades is also a must have unit. Tubes are a tweekers delight. Swap tubes for different sounds, solder in some new coupling caps, they're tough to beat when it comes to sound. Lastly, the resale of tube gear is very good. Dyna kits and clones will be here forever! I'm not sure what the thinking is of vintage transistor gear??

reeltrouble1

Three horns build a pyramid, an aboslute perfect fifth from each other, with exacting intonation, the resulting wave captured forever by the engineer on a recording, upon hearing this moment the thrill rushes in, the hairs stand up, the shrill runs down the spine, it is audio nirvana, so pure the entire body can respond.

Within the next tone the perfection is lost, the artist's show their frailty in achieving perfect pitch, a wave stands in a studio room, does this diminish the prior tone or glorify its perfection?

So come along those rarerest jewels, where synergy between artist's, engineers, and gear mesh as one and sustain an entire song or even set, this is where the foundation of accuracy lays and why it is so important, to capture the achievement of the great, however fleeting it may be and make it available through recording, while understanding the other lesser tones as human, accepting them as a part of the whole.

Within the focus and understanding of what does work, are the answers to improving what does not.

RT1

shack

The few times I've bought a CD solely because someone said "It is an absolutely stunning recording", more often than not it has become a rarely played CD. If it is something I like, excellent sonics are the icing on the cake. On the flip side, If I truly like the music and the recording is poor, I may try and find a better recording if it is a physical issue (which I did just recently with an Emerson, Lake and Palmer LP that was scratched badly) or look for a better remastered copy if available or I will live with the poor sonics and keep listening to it.

madmax

The better my system gets the worse it sounds but the more I enjoy it. Sometimes I wish I could go back but when I do I find it doesn't sound as good as I remember. I think hearing better equipment changes you and there is no turning back.
madmax

DarqueKnight

mulveling wrote:

When it comes down to it, we don't know exactly what the recording is supposed to sound like.

I know what music sounds like when it is being produced by real voices and instruments in a real acoustic environment. This is my reference.

mulveling wrote:

Music's sole purpose is to be enjoyed as much as possible, so if a certain device renders it with a more pleasing tone, I might as well call it truthful

Well, maybe not truthful, but certainly more enjoyable for some. Some guys prefer women with humongous fake ****. Although the guys who enjoy such "enhancements" know that they are viewing an inaccurate presentation, it does not detract from their viewing (and tactile) pleasure.

tonyb

I love audio- women analogy's!!!:)

gidrah

This is why I love my Dynaco.

Refefer

tonyb wrote:

I love audio- women analogy's!!!:)

Through my system, I make the music I love to listen to my b*tch.

treitz3

steveinaz wrote:

Sometimes, as you move up, you feel like you're actually moving backwards. It's a strange paradox with audio---but remember, the better your equipment gets, the more it reveals--both good AND bad. So your bad recordings will sound worse (usually) and your good recordings will sound better. Think of it in terms of a microscope.

We are so used to hearing distortion, that when we hear a system that reproduces with little distortion, the music sounds different, lacks impact, or whatever it is that was thought to be part of the signal, is gone. You'll notice this especially when you move from a receiver to a seperate power amp. Your first thought is typically "what happen to my bass?" Well, the bass is there, it's just being reproduced more accurately.

Ageed 100%. Very well spoken and accurate!

Dean guitar pla

Reading this thread reinforces my preference for vinyl. CD's do nothing for me period and the one's I have bought are because they are difficult to find or never released on vinyl