will
|
I think my experience is a lot like what Lon has described. As my system/room improves, all recordings sound better, but like Lon, this has long been an objective for me. Counter intuitive in some ways, for thin, brittle recordings, rather than toning down “the bad” for the sake of "listenability," I work to refine resolution, fine detail, space, definition and balance as means to resolve hardness and bring the best out of recordings. My treble and bass adjustments remain wide open.
For me, seeking a "right" spectral and harmonic balance in a complex audio system and room is just really challenging. Yet without that, it seems nothing can sound its best. At the same time, good recordings seem to have a lot of this handled, more easily absorbing system tuning imbalances. As a result, if I tune mainly with really good recordings, I can inadvertently make lesser recordings worse. I find decent recordings with various flaws are often my best teachers, having a lot right, but enough wrong to show me where to go. Balanced for better sound across recordings, including great ones...with good gear and room, and impediments resolved, I find a system/room can help lesser and great recordings a lot...and well implemented Decware tube gear really helps if all else is up to it.
I use reference recordings with varying instruments and voices, and ranges of spectral, harmonic and spacial balances. Some are really good, allowing overall tuning to be a bit too flexible, but I use these to read subtle qualities and nuances...Some are good in balance, but on the edge of powerful density and dynamics, revealing exaggerated tuning if a little off… Some a little lean and bright, edgy and lacking body if off... Some balanced toward bass, darkening mids and highs, causing sacrifices in articulate mids, shimmer and spaciousness if tuning is off... Some with hard horn hits or intense solo violin parts, showing mid/upper-mid hardness, lack of texture and richness if off...Some are almost right, but with the occasional aberrant recorded note that gets too intense if a little off…Some have soft bass lacking definition if off. Using a similar range of references so much, at times a few notes or words can reveal if new tuning is on or off, and other times, it takes a number of recordings to show tuning issues.
Finally, I have come to blame musical unevenness on system and room imbalances as much as on recording qualities. When the system is great only on limited recordings, rather than thinking of it as “honesty,” I look for balance and resolution issues. And as I increase resolution, I have been forced to learn to discern subtler imbalances that good recordings are tolerant of, while doing damage to lesser recordings. Not always completely logical to me, each quality tube or cable or foot having complex characters that may be hard to identify, I have to experiment. But progressive refinements that improve good recordings, and not so good alike, seems the best measure for me. As things get more and more balanced and resolving, typically this method makes great recordings better than had I tuned to great recordings only.
Lots of trial and error with room (treatment with EQ refinement), clean and balanced sounding power, vibration mitigation, cable tuning, and finally a lot of component tuning, slowly I get better at hearing, helping me find issues and solutions. Increased fine detail and space in a frequency balance that works well across recordings seems to be a quite delicate balance, but when good, it can resolve hardness and glare rather than creating it, while conveying recorded material more completely and musically.
For many years tube exploration was primary for me, leaving me with many variations of all the different tubes my components can use. Over time, choices narrowed but remain quite varied, allowing careful mixing and matching for the best resolution and musical balance from a tube set. Also I found seeking the best cables for a given component quite useful, the right cables helping it to “speak” clearly and fully across a lot of recordings, and allowing it to mix better with other components. Unwilling to pay what I would have to for the quality I need, and enjoying figuring it out and fine tuning, most of my cables are now home-made.
Silver on copper wire in well designed speaker cables and ICs, for me, became a good example of how something can be good in general, but uneven, making deciding what is what more challenging. But finally, as my system became more resolving, some really nice seeming cables ended up just too edgy, rigid, and/or uneven top to bottom, particularly for lesser recordings. For ICs and speaker cables, moving to very pure silver and copper wires... carefully tuned balance of wires and gauges used... just-so geometry and damping... and revealing and neutral ends, everything became more resolving, less rigid, and better balanced in frequency range and speed. This also made overall balance easier to read. Some silver plated copper wires are good for me at times for power cables, but so far, only when there is: a good range of smaller gauges making up the final conglomerate gauge; fine tuned geometry and damping; and really good ends.
Using a NOS Tranquility DAC for many years, “analog” and resolving, I tuned it cleaner and more resolving than “stock” with cables, feet, weight, software, software settings, etc. It was a great reference especially for harmonic information...fine detail in space….the DAC helping to achieve high resolution of spacious fine detail.
When I tried a ZDSD, though likely the best for sound, I did not go the SD card route since all my records are on the computer and I like and know this system and software. Using the same highly tuned Mac Mini, and excellent sounding cables, I had some difficulties with the ZDSD. An impediment was the USB-SPDIF converter I had, but I had liked it with the earlier Decware ZDAC quite a bit, so trusted it enough for the trial. For me, the ZDSD was really good sounding on a lot of recordings, but in my system, a bit too uneven for my needs. Compared to the Tranquility it improved better recordings in ways I enjoyed, but also degraded quite a few recordings by comparison. No matter what I tried, cables, feet, settings in the DAC and computer, even lots of subtle EQ experiments... I got close, but I could not even it up for the range of recordings I enjoy. Loving the quality of the ZBIT-type output, I guessed it was some internal design/parts that were not optimal in my system balance. Maybe the developers tuned that Tascam with mostly good recordings, I don’t know. But for me, it was a little too positive or negative depending on the recording, and I knew from the Tranquility, and later, from my very resolving modified Gustard and ZBIT, unevenness does not have to be as much of a challenge.
Everything influenced by room, tubes, feet, cables, weights, etc, it is not surprising system balancing is tricky from the source on. No doubt here, what feeds the DAC makes a big difference for balancing the rest of the sound. “If it is not there at the source, it is not there” kept showing up for me over years, but I feel pretty well “there” now. Even so, as the system changes, slightly-off software and DAC settings... or a very good but not great cable... or the wrong feet for a given job.... lots of things can sound really good until an off-balanced recording shows up. Then I need to dig deeper. Always seeking higher resolution; fine detail and spacial information; excellent bass body and definition; natural tonal balance; and not blowing into hardness with horns and violins, I keep fine tuning as needed. The balance refined, so far, all recordings I listen to get better.
Speaker feet were really big for me for a smooth and resolving balance. I also carefully mitigated driver and speaker box resonance and tuned the plinth spaces, increasing bass impact, speed and resolution, while increasing space and complex detail by reducing smearing. Exploring tweeter caps and resistors quite a lot was also big-time here...finding more complete, richer and slightly sweet resolution.
Gain riding helps a lot for me. My amp started great with the right setup, but after over 2.5 years of progressive modifications, it is profoundly resolving, balanced, musical, and "live" sounding... and generally with good and not-so good recordings. My ZBIT is quite transparent, and adjusting voltage gain can easily be used to adjust the amp’s tonal balance, relaxing or pushing lucid intensity, focus and bass. A heavily modified CSP3, with increased smooth resolution, open lucidity and complex detail, turning it up or down adjusts the same parameters, but with a different flavor and a greater voltage range. I have worked to get it, but complimentary in signature with my ZBIT, the complexity of the two together (at least how I have them tuned), helps me get a more complete and natural sound out of amazingly variable recording balances. One or both adjusted together before the amp, a too bassy recording can be calmed back, solving boom or muddle while increasing clarity and spaciousness. Or if a recording is too top rigid and/or focussed, backing down the CSP3 and/or ZBIT I can find a nice boundary with great focus that is more relaxed and with less tendency to hardness. Or if a recording sounds lean, the two can be tuned independently or together with the Torii to give spacious clarity with bigger bass in the balance, also increasing body. With these components and all else optimized, gain riding in this setup, can be used to tune pretty much any recording for the better, potentiating a more realistic and engaging musical experience.
For me, it is all a creative journey, and it is not perfect. But from years of considering everything as I tune, uncovering and eliminating weak links, and improving better links, I do seem to be able to get “consumed” by the music more completely, more often, and by many more recordings. Finally, I find resolution and balance improvements across recordings a real balancing act, but possible and very fruitful.
|