SQ perception “inflation"

That’s hardly surprising: the enjoyment of music reproduction has little to do with sound quality. If you want more enjoyment, learn more about the music you are listening to. Read about it. Most concert and opera houses are offering great contents for free nowadays. The DCH has made their whole archive available for free, inclusive movies and interviews. This is one of the few bright sides of the crisis: we have time and great opportunities to learn, think about, understand and compare music!

1 Like

I think the inflation starts as soon as you are through the awe state. Because from that moment the new sound is the standard and you will not be able to appreciate too much anymore what is going on in addition. Unless you of course listen to an album you are quite familiar with and which is now sounding so much better. In a way frustrating as you would like to feel the awe longer…

I had not listened to my UnitiQute2/NAP100 Dynaudio X12 little loft system in quite a few weeks. Listened to Mark Hollis’ 1998 solo album (via Roon) for the first time, on that system, last night. THOROUGHLY enjoyable up in my loft. Not nearly the experience of my main system in my living room, but that’s ok. TOTALLY enjoyable. Totally musical.

1 Like

I am currently working in my loft listening to UQ into SBLs. Very enjoyable if nowhere near the standard of the main system (daughter back from uni has requisitioned that room :roll_eyes:).

My main thought on the thread is that I am now six months into the ND555, and 13 months into the 552 and about 11-12 months into the active 300dr pair after their service and dr upgrade (SL2s). I have spent dramatically more time listening to the main system since all the major spending over the last 12-13 months so (although I entirely appreciate the problem of habituation) it has most certainly not hit my enjoyment of the main system which is considerably greater than ever before.

I only realised quite recently how much more I was listening to the main system (working in front of it instead of in the loft)

1 Like

Interesting musing on the eclectic ecumenical effect on baroque music by Michel Foucault and Pierre Boulez in contemporary accountability of music.
With today’s complex methods of music grabbing far overreaching musics intrinsic ability to complicate itself, perhaps.
(Although antisemitisms could conflate the issue.)

I’ve always been curious as to know why my system sounds so much better later in the evening!

1 Like

I have an email from Max detailing the differences between the Alegri+ and the DC47… I took the liberty to paste it below. I can forward the original email if you wish:

The Allegri is made to a budget, the DC47 is not.
Here are the differences.

  1. The Allegri+ is built with some cost constraints. The DC47 is absolutely purest with no compromise in signal path integrity.
  2. There are twelve internal connectors in the Allegri+. There are no internal connectors in the DC47. It is direct point-to-point wiring throughout.
  3. The insulation in the Allegri+ is PVC (good). The insulation in the DC47 is PTFE. The Best!
  4. The volume control in the Allegri+ is very high quality with silver plated contacts. The DC47 has a top-of-the-tree Swiss made hard gold contacts 47 steps with remote switch control costing 70 times the price of the Allegri+ switch.
  5. The input and output connectors on the Allegri+ are gold over brass. In the DC47, the connectors are gold over copper (WBT) and cost 100 times the price. of the Allegri+
  6. The Allegri case is solid with one layer of constrained layer damping. The DC47 has all 6 panels constrained layer damped.
  7. The case of the Allegri is small and compact. The case of the DC47 is a lot larger to add extra mass and damping, as well as sound-proofing.
  8. The Allegri+ has non-slip rubber feet. The DC47 has full air-damped, music-wire spring Seismic isolation feet for total vibration isolation down to 5Hz.
  9. The Allegri+ has 24 steps. The DC47 has 47 steps.
  10. The transformers in the Allegri + and the DC47 are virtually identical, apart from the taps.
  11. The Allegri+ has a selector switch. The DC47 is hard wired, one in and one out.
  12. The Allegri+ is very good, but the DC47 is in another league due to the impeccable component choice and the build quality.

As for the sound, the DC47 is almost identical to the Allegri+. On my system, all the refinements listed above add together to give a slightly more natural sound with the music coming put of a more inky-black silence when compared with the Allegri+. The law of diminishing returns applies here as the Allegri+ sound is so good already. But, overall having the remote control, double the volume steps and the lower noise floor, result in a much more satisfying listening experience with the DC47. It sounds better! The DC47 should outlast the Allegr+ as well.

bailyhill

1 Like

And what about the Townsend Allegri reference ?

8k

I don’t know anything about this unit. Seen no reviews. Have not heard it. Suspect it’s even better than the Allegri+. I knew Max was working on it. Probably worth a listen for anyone liking the passive approach.

1 Like

Thanks for the detailed reply @Harry. Its an interesting topic and as you can see, many sophisticated responses. My system was initially set-up by my dealer considering placement, management of the cables and the Fraim itself. I have tried to keep track of the tweaks regarding which input to use on the 552 and settings on the ND555, my only source. However, I never had another 552 or ND555 in my home to compare as you initially did, so its hard to say if one of my components might be performing sub optimally.

Unfortunately, now is now a good time to get the dealer back in. But it’s an option for the future. I’d do it.

A little perspective goes a long way . . . Remember when Martin Colloms reviewed the Goldmund Reference turntable and awarded it a then-unprecedented score (50 points, IIRC, could well be wrong . . .) on his “open ended” scale? And how he just scored the ND555 with 2 PS a score of 470? Is the ND555 9 times better than the Goldmund Reference? Of course not.

Some of our perception of SQ “improvement” comes from our innate human desire to justify, and, thus, to belong. And some comes from a desire to explain what we perceive - that is where, I think, much of the “inflation” comes from. It’s difficult to explain what, exactly, sounds different to us to someone else, and so we inflate the size of the differences in an effort to communicate our differing perception of SQ. For example: is there that much of a difference between a 140 and a 180? To many folks here, yes. To most of the general population? No.

The same is true in other areas. Take wine. There are those who will die on a hill for a particular vintage being “better” than another. Are there differences? Sure. But would most of us be able to tell? No. The same with single malt, cars, badminton racquets, clothes, etc.

As someone who has been (as in, really been in - as in, kicking in doors, engaging in kinetic action regularly, etc.) in 3 different wars, I recognize that my perspective is skewed away from believing that the differences between a 140 and a 180 matter that much. I can hear them easily, but don’t put anywhere near as much importance on them (leaving aside the cost differential).

I don’t mean to suggest the differences don’t exist, or that they don’t matter to people. But I do think we tend to overstate the degree of difference, even assuming we’d mostly agree on what the differences are.

There are a number of things that I’ve come to believe only get ‘but so good.’ Pizza; I love GOOD pizza, and loathe bad pizza. But it only gets but so good. Beer; when I did drink alcohol, I enjoyed a lot of really good craft beers. But would I wait in line 3 hours for 6 cans of some obscure but highly rated one? NO! I could go on . . .

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.