It would be cool to see pictures of the internals of your unit but don't go out of your way, I know you have lots of other priorities. Absolutely. I will be certain to show every detail and be clear about the process. It is never out of my way when it is important to provide a visual perspective.
For the most part I just want to say Thank You for recommending the C9. It works well, and if I have it refreshed (and RCA's upgraded) it will only be better. The concept of eliminating inter-aural crosstalk makes a lot of sense and the C9 does a great job at an affordable price point. Yes, I am certainly glad that you are now introduced to it's capabilities, even though you still have to work out the positioning a bit for maximum benefit.
You could not have stated that description of the C9 better. It indeed does exactly what it is designed to do, and do it very well. As I said, this unit was his most famous product. This unit had higher sales than any other device he invented. Once you plug one of these devices into your system, it is easy to understand why.
would this solid state piece of gear inserted between the pre and amp take something away from the pure and great tube sound I was getting?That went along with my reasoning as well before I bought this unit. But I had to find out, and to my relief, the answer is NO....absolutely NOT! It does not color the sound. It does not introduce audible noise. It does not take anything away from the system what-so-ever. To the contrary, the C9 only
corrects what is wrong with the two channel system, nothing more, nothing less. I would say that it creates no more harm than the introduction of interconnects within the signal path.
The benefits greatly outweigh any negative departure one could think of. Once you take this unit out of the loop, you find out with bitter disappointment what you have been missing in your music all along. Trying to listen to two channel stereo will never be the same without it. This thing makes a dramatic difference, exactly where that difference is required. If anything, the C9 enhances the final signature of the amplifier as the icing on the cake. I certainly believe that a high quality amplifier such as the ToriMk3 is what it takes in order for the C9 to reveal it's true capabilities.
The manual for the C9 states that one needs to train his ears to pick up on the effect of sonic holography. They stated that it could take many hours or days to begin understanding what it is doing in the system. You have to consider the grade quality of the equipment back then, and also the fact that most rooms were not going to have acoustic treatment. That alone presents a problem which will greatly hamper the presentation of the C9.
My take on that statement is this, that was certainly NOT the case with my system in this acoustically corrected setting of mine. The transition was immediate, and with great embodiment. I did not have to train my ears to hear this. The outcome is immediately apparent and very effective within a proper setup.This is exactly why experimentation is necessary to find the correct degree of injection ratio and width of the aperture setting. Every room is different, so every room will respond differently to these settings. You have to determine the best settings of your unit by ear. Your hearing will tell you the truth. Go with what suits your perception the best. That is always the best setting for you. Listen to it one way for awhile, then replay that same music track with another setting. You will eventually figure out what works best to your ears.
The better the system, the more refined the room acoustics are, will definitely play a critical part as to how you will perceive the effect of inter-aural cross-talk cancellation. That is exactly what the C9 does. It's primary purpose is to cancel out the extra sound arrivals which are not true to nature and should not be there in the music. All you have to do is experience it to understand. Once you do, it is highly likely that you will want this unit.
Think about this.
You have a digital source unit, right? Is that circuit made up of solid state components? Of course, and if it is a high quality design, you already know that it works fine with tube gear, and if well matched in the system, does so without any negative aspects that would reduce your listening experience. The tube amp is the final component to handle the signals before being fed to your speakers. The final signature will be that of the amplifier, especially a tube amplifier which I believe will act as a cleansing filter to the incoming signals introduced from a solid state device. Is that not why it is favorable to upgrade the DAC outputs to a tube stage rather than the opamps? Of course, for the very simple reason that the tube output stage buffers the signal before going on to the amp.
The insertion of the C9 is merely an extension of the digital source. It is the final process before sending the signals directly into the amplifier.
There are some very good sounding opamps available today, but many have heard the difference using a tube buffer...and most agree that this finesses the sound signature to something more pleasing. I guess it stems back to that comparison between digital and analog. Analog is of course more natural and is far favored by our ears. It took many years before the digital world would create CD players that sounded anywhere near as good as the analog counterparts. The debate is still out on that one.
People don't go the trouble and expense of owning exotic high dollar vinyl systems because they primarily enjoy spinning records with all the effort that goes into that. They do so because analog is natural, and analog is what our ears are meant to receive and understand. Listening fatigue will always be a factor of that difference at high volume listening levels. You are likely to be audibly stressed with the digital version at higher listening levels long before this occurs with analog (providing the analog presentation is clean and distortion free). When a sine wave shows clipping of the top crest with a digital signal, compared to the analog sine-wave showing a complete arc across the top, that alone should be clear of missing information which naturally, there is a huge difference in sound quality.
This reminds me of compression used in studio mastering. They are producing a substandard variation of the music with limited dynamic range. The final product is one that simply sounds unnatural and defective to our ears. To hear the difference is to know the difference. Once that compressed part of the music is restored back to normal, then everything is fine again to our perception. That missing information is critical. Our auditory perception can't be fooled into believing otherwise.
This is becoming an interesting journey for you, JB, and I to explore the possibilities while using the C9. I have to wonder what it will actually take to wake people up about the importance of this signal correction device and get them to realize just exactly what this process is, and why they should consider hearing it for themselves.
Perhaps with your continued input based upon your experience, and that of JB as well doing the same, I doubt people could resist the temptation of this discovery for their own affirmation. I expect that more people than not will have a reaction similar to yours, with a full understanding immediately transposed upon initial hearing of this corrective measure. I have to believe that the outcome will usually be positive within the full scope of experimentation. If something is amiss, I have to wonder what the real root cause is for the negative outcome.
So I hope this made sense and perhaps shed some light onto your take on things concerning this device. It is so much easier when you have actual experience using it. You are along for the ride. Where this goes we shall just have to see.
Hope you and the family have a great Christmas!
You never know what Santa might bring.
Enjoy!