Rybo
Minor Hero
Posts: 62 
|
Post by Rybo on Jun 30, 2020 19:42:42 GMT -5
So I recently purchased a pair of T-Zero+ speakers (to go with my TA-100 integrated) and have waited a couple of weeks to write anything about them to allow some time for burn-in and ear/brain acclimation to the sonic signature. This is after happily using a pair of Airmotiv 4S speakers near-field for ~4 years, as well as an NAD 326BEE / PSB Alpha B1 combo system. And the initial verdict is:
... My playlists on Spotify, even on the "Very High" Premium setting, sound thin and lifeless compared to good-sourced music.
On the other hand, while playing audiophile-quality source material, the T-Zero's are fantastic -- dynamic and clear (realistic), forward yet with a bit of warmth. And they project amazing imaging characteristics as expected with that awesome AMT tweeter.
With quality material, these speakers punch above their weight and price as advertised, so be aware that they need to be supplied with good source material to fully appreciate and enjoy their capabilities. Feed them properly and they produce extraordinarily satisfying musicality.
I wasn't quite expecting them to reveal the lack of quality on Premium Spotify the way they do, yet to sound so much better than my previous NAD-326BEE / PSB Alpha B-1 combo by such a drastic leap.
Rybo
|
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Jun 30, 2020 20:00:25 GMT -5
Have you given Tidal a try with the free trial, see if you notice a difference, I use Tidal for 90% of my listening and enjoy it on all my systems throughout the house.
Chad
|
|
Rybo
Minor Hero
Posts: 62
|
Post by Rybo on Jun 30, 2020 20:10:15 GMT -5
Have you given Tidal a try with the free trial, see if you notice a difference, I use Tidal for 90% of my listening and enjoy it on all my systems throughout the house. Chad I am considering it, yes (and comparing some of the other streaming services as well). The way I wrote my "review" is pretty much how I experienced the speakers, wondering why most of the music on Spotify just doesn't sound very good after enjoying the 4S for so long. But after finding some better source material I'm enjoying them MUCH more. A little disappointed that my playlists generally don't sound good, but not the fault of the speakers -- they just accurately reveal the source quality more than expected. |
|
|
|
Post by creimes on Jun 30, 2020 20:27:54 GMT -5
Have you given Tidal a try with the free trial, see if you notice a difference, I use Tidal for 90% of my listening and enjoy it on all my systems throughout the house. Chad I am considering it, yes (and comparing some of the other streaming services as well). The way I wrote my "review" is pretty much how I experienced the speakers, wondering why most of the music just doesn't sound very good after enjoying the 4S for so long. But after finding some better source material I'm enjoying them MUCH more. A little disappointed that my playlists generally don't sound good, but not the fault of the speakers at all. The source material matters very much so when you have a neutral system, which I have always found most of my Emotiva gear exhibit's |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 30, 2020 21:08:38 GMT -5
Some source material, however much we may like the music, just wasn't ever well-recorded. You can't control that. What can you control? How the music comes out of the speakers. Granting that in an ideal world the speakers you use would make everything sound great, that just isn't how things are. So what's to be done? Any of the suggestions below is cheaper than new speakers and all of them have the potential to improve "thin and lifeless."
1. Add a tube buffer. A touch of that magic second-harmonic distortion will certainly add some body to even poorly recorded music.
2. Add an equalizer (Schiit Loki comes to mind). That way you can warm up only the frequency ranges you need to.
In both cases, buffers and equalizers come with a bypass switch, so if you're listening to good recordings, just switch them out. A good tube buffer will cost less than $300 and the Loki, half that. For the money, you can't go wrong.
Boomzilla
|
|
Rybo
Minor Hero
Posts: 62
|
Post by Rybo on Jun 30, 2020 21:28:06 GMT -5
Some source material, however much we may like the music, just wasn't ever well-recorded. You can't control that. What can you control? How the music comes out of the speakers. Granting that in an ideal world the speakers you use would make everything sound great, that just isn't how things are. So what's to be done? Any of the suggestions below is cheaper than new speakers and all of them have the potential to improve "thin and lifeless." 1. Add a tube buffer. A touch of that magic second-harmonic distortion will certainly add some body to even poorly recorded music. 2. Add an equalizer (Schiit Loki comes to mind). That way you can warm up only the frequency ranges you need to. In both cases, buffers and equalizers come with a bypass switch, so if you're listening to good recordings, just switch them out. A good tube buffer will cost less than $300 and the Loki, half that. For the money, you can't go wrong. Boomzilla Thanks for the tips. The only issue is that I'm currently connected via USB directly into the TA-100 DAC. There is actually a decent software EQ (as far as I'm aware) -- EQ APO. I only use it for *very* slight changes, probably undetectable to most because I feel that altering the speakers audibly degrades the signature (IMO). The bigger issue for me is just the lack of dynamics. I used to have a Dynamic Range Expander (set around 15-20%) back in the day when I had an NAD integrated with a tape loop. I found it did help a bit for material that lacked dynamics/impact, and miss it for that reason -- though I realize some do NOT like any kind of signal processing, or specifically for dynamic range with its artifacts (though again, I kept it at a low expansion setting to mitigate them). But I sold it, and it's pointless now anyway with a direct connection. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 30, 2020 22:22:51 GMT -5
In that case, might I suggest that more horsepower might fire up the speaker’s dynamics? Emotiva makes some (relatively) inexpensive monoblocks, the PA-1s, that not only sound transparent, but also have good dynamics. I love mine!
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Jun 30, 2020 22:33:58 GMT -5
Crap in = crap out, thin in = thin out, lifeless in = lifeless out.
Quality in = quality out, dynamic in = dynamic out, live in = live out.
Well, no debats here.
|
|
Rybo
Minor Hero
Posts: 62
|
Post by Rybo on Jun 30, 2020 22:56:40 GMT -5
In that case, might I suggest that more horsepower might fire up the speaker’s dynamics? Emotiva makes some (relatively) inexpensive monoblocks, the PA-1s, that not only sound transparent, but also have good dynamics. I love mine! Well, I just purchased the TA-100 a month ago.... and it definitely has enough HP for me in my listening room. I just didn't expect to discern lower-quality source material that drastically. Listening to small, near-field speakers for so long caught me off-guard in that respect. It was an "ear-opener" -- but if anyone follows a similar upgrade path from smaller to larger, better quality of speakers, keep this in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jul 1, 2020 3:53:44 GMT -5
Crap in = crap out, thin in = thin out, lifeless in = lifeless out. Quality in = quality out, dynamic in = dynamic out, live in = live out. Well, no debats here. Actually, frenchyfranky, there IS a debate. You say the recording is destiny. It'll never sound better than it was recorded. I say that to some extent, modification of the frequency response and distortion envelope of a file CAN improve the sound. If you don't believe it, then there should be no such thing as equalizers, tone controls, tube-buffers, and room correction at all because they're ALL ineffective. If you don't believe me, then we can agree to disagree. Cordially - Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 1, 2020 11:59:37 GMT -5
Hmmm... you know I agree that some music sounds a lot better than others. However the thin and lifeless sound that you may be getting could also have to do with your room and speaker positioning. I used to think a lot of music I listened to was thin and lifeless and it had to do with the source. But later, I realized it was my setup. I suggest trying acoustic treatments if you haven't already. They are the cheapest most effective improvement to your setup. Also try experimenting with speaker positining. Like the toe in. How far apart the speakers are. And how far you are from the speakers too. These are free improvements that can make a large difference in the sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Jul 1, 2020 12:09:44 GMT -5
Crap in = crap out, thin in = thin out, lifeless in = lifeless out. Quality in = quality out, dynamic in = dynamic out, live in = live out. Well, no debats here. Actually, frenchyfranky , there IS a debate. You say the recording is destiny. It'll never sound better than it was recorded. I say that to some extent, modification of the frequency response and distortion envelope of a file CAN improve the sound. If you don't believe it, then there should be no such thing as equalizers, tone controls, tube-buffers, and room correction at all because they're ALL ineffective. If you don't believe me, then we can agree to disagree. Cordially - Boomzilla Hi Boomzilla, No,no, you misunderstood me, I'm not necessarily point the recording, sometimes it is, but the vast majority of the music recordings are pretty good enough to sounds pleasant to the ears with a good sound system. I have in mind the input source. Most download mp3 are horribles, compressed, thin, lifeless, crappy, even the 320k sounds much less dynamic and details compared to CDs. Streaming is not more better except for a few HQ services like Tidal and Amazon HQ and personally I compared side by side a few albums with Tidal hi-fi and the CDs and the CDs win the battle easily, we can hear the streaming bandwidth compression effect specifically on hi-freq and the effect that induces on dynamic and live like sense. So yes if your input source is crappy the final result will sounds crappy too. So a nice original recording album can sounds crappy after being streaming or compressed mp3 or wathever degraded. We can't expect that this:  Will taste that:  Cheers Boomzilla |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 1, 2020 12:49:45 GMT -5
There is another option which I would point out - for those of you who listen digitally - and have a few albums that you REALLY care about. The official name for this sort of thing is NLE - which is short for "Non-Linear Editor". Now that I've got your attention I'll explain a bit more... 
That's just a techie term for using an audio editing program to actually edit your digital audio files. The term "non-linear" refers to the fact that, rather than change the sound in real-time, like an equalizer... You take your music file, load it into an editing program, make your adjustments, then save the file... And, when you're done, you have a new copy of your track that sounds exactly how you want it to, that you can play whenever you want to...
The main benefit is that you can make very precise corrections, take as long as you like to get them right, and you only have to do them once...
Then you can play the resulting remastered file whenever you like. (And, of course, you can try as many different variations as you like.)
And, unlike separate analog gear, all of the processing and correction is done in high-bit-depth DSP processors... With essentially no noise or distortion and almost an infinite range of control and precision... (and, yes, an almost infinite way to really mess things up as well  )
If you were impressed with what an old-school dynamic range expander or tube buffer can do....
You want a dynamic range expander... how about four separate fully configurable bands... You want tube warmth... check out the Exciter module... And Low End Focus to punch up the bass... And an equalizer that actually lets you draw the EQ curve you want... And, you want a wider sound stage, just turn the dial...
(And, yes, they have a free trial period)
Some source material, however much we may like the music, just wasn't ever well-recorded. You can't control that. What can you control? How the music comes out of the speakers. Granting that in an ideal world the speakers you use would make everything sound great, that just isn't how things are. So what's to be done? Any of the suggestions below is cheaper than new speakers and all of them have the potential to improve "thin and lifeless." 1. Add a tube buffer. A touch of that magic second-harmonic distortion will certainly add some body to even poorly recorded music. 2. Add an equalizer (Schiit Loki comes to mind). That way you can warm up only the frequency ranges you need to. In both cases, buffers and equalizers come with a bypass switch, so if you're listening to good recordings, just switch them out. A good tube buffer will cost less than $300 and the Loki, half that. For the money, you can't go wrong. Boomzilla Thanks for the tips. The only issue is that I'm currently connected via USB directly into the TA-100 DAC. There is actually a decent software EQ (as far as I'm aware) -- EQ APO. I only use it for *very* slight changes, probably undetectable to most because I feel that altering the speakers audibly degrades the signature (IMO). The bigger issue for me is just the lack of dynamics. I used to have a Dynamic Range Expander (set around 15-20%) back in the day when I had an NAD integrated with a tape loop. I found it did help a bit for material that lacked dynamics/impact, and miss it for that reason -- though I realize some do NOT like any kind of signal processing, or specifically for dynamic range with its artifacts (though again, I kept it at a low expansion setting to mitigate them). But I sold it, and it's pointless now anyway with a direct connection. I didn't find that a software compressor set at .80 worked as well for me, so I'm just going to be more picky with my listening selections (not expecting everything to be perfect). |
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on Aug 2, 2020 9:07:00 GMT -5
Here's my take on this. You now have a pair of speakers that reveal the difference between good recording and crappy recording. I don't have the time, patience or equipment to do the things keithL explains to alter the digital files. So I take the lazy poor man way out. I listen to well recorded music I enjoy.
It has always been my contention that the quality of the recording is the number one important factor in a good sounding system. More so than speakers, room, equipment, wires and attitude.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Aug 2, 2020 10:14:14 GMT -5
Here's my take on this. You now have a pair of speakers that reveal the difference between good recording and crappy recording. I don't have the time, patience or equipment to do the things keithL explains to alter the digital files. So I take the lazy poor man way out. I listen to well recorded music I enjoy. It has always been my contention that the quality of the recording is the number one important factor in a good sounding system. More so than speakers, room, equipment, wires and attitude. Mark I agree with you, but ya know what I miss? Having the ability to put a “BandAid” on recordings that SUCK.....but are nonetheless STELLAR musical performances. Such was the case when the Sunfire Theater 🎭 Grand II was my music preamp. With it, I could embellish a poor recording with a sound processing mode (A level of “Cathedral” was one of my favorites and would add something FUN to the mix. All of that’s out the window these days, as my “modern,” contemporary HDMI equipment forces the issue of getting everything perfect....without the fun....oh well! Bill |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 2, 2020 10:50:59 GMT -5
Hi Boomzilla, No,no, you misunderstood me, I'm not necessarily point the recording, sometimes it is, but the vast majority of the music recordings are pretty good enough to sounds pleasant to the ears with a good sound system. I have in mind the input source. Most download mp3 are horribles, compressed, thin, lifeless, crappy, even the 320k sounds much less dynamic and details compared to CDs. Streaming is not more better except for a few HQ services like Tidal and Amazon HQ and personally I compared side by side a few albums with Tidal hi-fi and the CDs and the CDs win the battle easily, we can hear the streaming bandwidth compression effect specifically on hi-freq and the effect that induces on dynamic and live like sense. So yes if your input source is crappy the final result will sounds crappy too. So a nice original recording album can sounds crappy after being streaming or compressed mp3 or wathever degraded... Hi frenchyfranky - You're totally right. ANY compression damages the sound of a file. In fact, I'd even contend that even ripping and then playing back a bit-perfect copy doesn't sound as good as playing a physical CD (and BOY will THAT statement be click-bait!). I have heard ripped files sound better than the source CD, but a LOT of time was spent using expanders, equalizers, and tube buffers (or else KeithL's software) to make a thin file sound warmer and more dynamic. And the amount of time and effort that goes into such a "file resurrection" is incredible. In fact, one of my audio amigos does a good business massaging and selling such files to equipment manufacturers that buy the files specifically to demo their components at audio shows. I've heard the A / B of the original disc file played from the CD player vs. the modified file sold to the manufacturer, and the difference is NOT subtle. So if you know what you're doing, you can "remaster" digital files for better sound. But once a file is compressed, some of the data is lost forever. It will NEVER sound as good as the higher resolution source. Cordially - Boom |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,170
|
Post by ttocs on Aug 2, 2020 11:24:10 GMT -5
There are a couple of go-to songs which were not recorded well that I use to test how congenial the system is.
Romer Void: A Girl In Trouble
The Runaways: Cherry Bomb
These songs will sound harsh immediately if something is not right with the system. Eons ago with my first "great" system these songs sounded good. But with my first electrostatic speakers they didn't sound as good as I remembered. Fast forward to last year when I was testing a few amps with my new second pair of electrostatics, and the songs sounded like crap with one of the amp brands.
I was comparing a pair of SS monoblocks and my multi-channel Krell. The monos cost was 3 times what the Krell cost and sounded horrible with the electrostatics, and these are really nice amps, but they just don't fit with stats. So the Krell was better, but not perfect. A couple months later I built a couple of tube mono amps and did the same comparo. This time the tube amps won and made the songs sound like what I remembered - really good. The songs still are not great recordings, but they can sound pleasing with the right combo. As Boom says, tubes.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Aug 3, 2020 8:40:29 GMT -5
Hi Boomzilla, No,no, you misunderstood me, I'm not necessarily point the recording, sometimes it is, but the vast majority of the music recordings are pretty good enough to sounds pleasant to the ears with a good sound system. I have in mind the input source. Most download mp3 are horribles, compressed, thin, lifeless, crappy, even the 320k sounds much less dynamic and details compared to CDs. Streaming is not more better except for a few HQ services like Tidal and Amazon HQ and personally I compared side by side a few albums with Tidal hi-fi and the CDs and the CDs win the battle easily, we can hear the streaming bandwidth compression effect specifically on hi-freq and the effect that induces on dynamic and live like sense. So yes if your input source is crappy the final result will sounds crappy too. So a nice original recording album can sounds crappy after being streaming or compressed mp3 or wathever degraded... Hi frenchyfranky - You're totally right. ANY compression damages the sound of a file. In fact, I'd even contend that even ripping and then playing back a bit-perfect copy doesn't sound as good as playing a physical CD (and BOY will THAT statement be click-bait!). I have heard ripped files sound better than the source CD, but a LOT of time was spent using expanders, equalizers, and tube buffers (or else KeithL's software) to make a thin file sound warmer and more dynamic. And the amount of time and effort that goes into such a "file resurrection" is incredible. In fact, one of my audio amigos does a good business massaging and selling such files to equipment manufacturers that buy the files specifically to demo their components at audio shows. I've heard the A / B of the original disc file played from the CD player vs. the modified file sold to the manufacturer, and the difference is NOT subtle. So if you know what you're doing, you can "remaster" digital files for better sound. But once a file is compressed, some of the data is lost forever. It will NEVER sound as good as the higher resolution source. Cordially - Boom Hi Boomzilla(and BOY will THAT statement be click-bait!) You make me spills my coffee  . When you said this, you know that you'll probably be alone with this statement but despite everything you have the courage of your convictions. Bravo  Personally I have ripped my complete CD collection of 2000 CD's over with JRiver without any compression in WAV files (1 bit for 1 bit) and over the years I made many A-B comparaison between the original CD's and the ripped files and never heard difference between both, naturally I ever used the same DAC for the comparaison, the XMC-1. I conclude that anyone would hear a difference should be a placebo effect. I really don't want to start a debate with you on this, it's only my observations and my thoughts on this subject because in the past I myself asking about it and made the exercise of verified it by myself to know if it makes sense to rip all my CD's collection. |
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Aug 3, 2020 9:29:38 GMT -5
Boomzilla's Zeros and Ones pass through the infamous Schrödinger's Cat DAC, so listening to the music alters its state. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,170
|
Post by ttocs on Aug 3, 2020 9:42:18 GMT -5
Boomzilla's Zeros and Ones pass through the infamous Schrödinger's Cat DAC, so listening to the music alters its state. But does it? or doesn't it? How will we know? or not know? Do I get it? or don't I? |
|
)
. When you said this, you know that you'll probably be alone with this statement but despite everything you have the courage of your convictions. Bravo 
