Boring hifi forbidden!

[beck]

I am sure it is a superb system you have. I will hopefully get a chance to listen to Lejonklou myself soon.

[hcl]

I hesitate to do so because:

1 The impressions were not based on ABA testing but how the system sounded after the changes forced upon me by the upgrade process. This is subject to more memory and psychological bias than usual

2 I suspect I am not one of the most discerning members on the forum - relying only on digital sources for listening and comparing musicality; and am probably more easily pleased, compared to others.

However; with Sagatun monos , Tundra Mono 2s and 242s the sneaky sounded quite listenable and hugely more enjoyable, compared to my kitchen system of sneaky driving Ninkas ( worse room acoustics aside ). I would say much more musical as well as a more 'impressive' sound.

I had this system for a couple of weeks, whilst waiting for the KDS/2 to arrive and never tired of it - I remember always developing listening fatigue with the sneaky / triactive LK140s and Ninkas ( ? not sure how well this was installed).

Perhaps a topic for a new thread may be ' peoples experience with good playback systems ( ie Sagatuns/KK and Tundra 2s/Solos) and lesser sources and, with the excellent preamps and amps now available; ' is it ever worthwhile upgrading the former and waiting for major source upgrades when funds allow.'

Thanks for sharing! I have done almost the same downgrade once, having the KDS on upgrade. I did not seem to have the same impresson as you did though.

[u252agz]

I suspect you are more discerning/demanding than me - or perhaps less subject to memory issues and bias.

Although rather easily pleased with most changes/upgrades, there are some which I have not enjoyed:

For example, I found the Netgear FS 108 switch killed the music ( compared to GS 105) and the internal volume control of the KDS1 ( compared to AK1) also made it difficult to enjoy, until fatigue got the better of me and beat me into acceptance.

And of course Exakt has never done it for me - so far.

The introduction of a new Lejonklou product/ upgraded unit on the other hand - nothing other than pure delight/amazement every time.

[lejonklou]

I have done almost the same downgrade once, having the KDS on upgrade. I did not seem to have the same impresson as you did though.

So you had Sagatun Mono and Tundra Mono 2 at home then?

[beck]

If the Lejonklou preamp is as good as I can read it would by replacing the preamp in the Sneaky make a big difference for sure.

[u252agz]

Don't underestimate the Tundra Mono 2 in place of the sneaky' sample module - whilst further down the food chain - it is reference standard ; just like the Sagatun monos.

[u252agz]

Please could someone edit the previous post to - the sneaky's amplifier module instead of sneaky' sample module!

[hcl]

I have done almost the same downgrade once, having the KDS on upgrade. I did not seem to have the same impresson as you did though.

So you had Sagatun Mono and Tundra Mono 2 at home then?

No, I have not tested Sagatun or Tundra at home.

[lejonklou]

No, I have not tested Sagatun or Tundra at home.

Ok, I see. I think that u252agz was referring to the difference between KDS and Sneaky with that particular amplification.

[u252agz]

Yes it was with Sagatun Monos and TM2s, Silvers, K200 and 242s.

[hcl]

No, I have not tested Sagatun or Tundra at home.

Ok, I see. I think that u252agz was referring to the difference between KDS and Sneaky with that particular amplification.

Why would that be especially important?

[lejonklou]

No, I have not tested Sagatun or Tundra at home.

Ok, I see. I think that u252agz was referring to the difference between KDS and Sneaky with that particular amplification.

Why would that be especially important?

Well, if you read his posts, especially the last one on page 1, he is wondering whether great amps or playback can improve the sound of lesser sources. In that context he mentioned the Sneaky DS as being surprisingly enjoyable in the system he has now.

To chime in on this subject, I feel that source first applies. Always has and still does. I do agree, however, that some amplifiers - or rather, some systems - do make everything more enjoyable. Including the sound of lesser sources such as old CD players and cable TV boxes. Sources that were previously annoying can appear quite rewarding.

I remember first experiencing this phenomenon long ago, when Linn Kairn replaced the LK1. While the early CD players could sound rather unpleasant with the LK1, they became much less annoying with the Kairn. It was as if Kairn became less upset by the digital sources of the time. I remember guessing that perhaps it could be due to better filtering of supersonic frequencies.

The worst source I have when developing products is a late Linn Karik, with integrated DAC. Although it has its weaknesses, it's still good enough for hearing even tiny differences in amplifiers and speakers. If I was to rely on it entirely, I would probably get lost, waste time and make more mistakes. But as a complement, it is quite useful: Whenever I feel that the performance of the Karik suddenly becomes unbearable, it's a clear sign I've made a mistake.

And when connected to Sagatun Mono's, that old Karik becomes so relaxed and easy flowing that I have several times just stopped and shaken my head in disbelief.

[hcl]

... I think that u252agz was referring to the difference between KDS and Sneaky with that particular amplification.

Why would that be especially important?

Well, if you read his posts, especially the last one on page 1, he is wondering whether great amps or playback can improve the sound of lesser sources. In that context he mentioned the Sneaky DS as being surprisingly enjoyable in the system he has now.

To chime in on this subject, I feel that source first applies. Always has and still does. I do agree, however, that some amplifiers - or rather, some systems - do make everything more enjoyable. Including the sound of lesser sources such as old CD players and cable TV boxes. Sources that were previously annoying can appear quite rewarding.

I remember first experiencing this phenomenon long ago, when Linn Kairn replaced the LK1. While the early CD players could sound rather unpleasant with the LK1, they became much less annoying with the Kairn. It was as if Kairn became less upset by the digital sources of the time. I remember guessing that perhaps it could be due to better filtering of supersonic frequencies.

The worst source I have when developing products is a late Linn Karik, with integrated DAC. Although it has its weaknesses, it's still good enough for hearing even tiny differences in amplifiers and speakers. If I was to rely on it entirely, I would probably get lost, waste time and make more mistakes. But as a complement, it is quite useful: Whenever I feel that the performance of the Karik suddenly becomes unbearable, it's a clear sign I've made a mistake.

And when connected to Sagatun Mono's, that old Karik becomes so relaxed and easy flowing that I have several times just stopped and shaken my head in disbelief.

I see what you mean and do agree. It seems the same applies further down the chain. For example, Keilidh could almost always be made to sound decent, regardless of electronics. It was not that they improved the absolute performance, but rather covered up the flaws of the electronics and themselves in a non distrcting way. I do agree that this is, in most cases a good property of a unit. It is as if the unit makes everything sound better. This property is clearly good in a hifi, as it makes the most of most of the recordings. It do feed the question what detrimental effects are these units have? If it is a coping and filtering matter I can not see that there are anything wrong with this approach. In the case of LK1 and Kairn, I guess that it is a clear matter of coping and filtering the un-desired out of band noise of some badly designed CD-players. A similar kind of effect, or rather units are often the favourites in studios, also for mastering. It is said that, putting a signal through a specific unit can improve (or cover up some annoying distractive elements of the studio mix without distroying) the sentiment of the songs. I am not convinced this process doesn't have some negtive effects on what is good in the raw mix, but I guess that if used in a good way it actually makes a positive contribution to the end result. I will have the oportunity to follow this process closely the next couple of months. It will be really interesting!

Tese kinds of units is not good at all times though. I did buy the AKG550 headphones and thought them to be very good. Very enjoyable when listeing to most tunes and through most sources. It turned out they where useless as monitor headphones though, because they just sounded nice all the time, not showing what the recorded material actually contained. What happened whas that a mix sounding good on the AKG550s could sound very poor on other systems. I did however not investigate the couse of this, just replaced them with other headphones, better suited for the purpouse. It was an interesting lesson though.

[lejonklou]

That units further down the chain can cover up faults is a well known phenomenon and perfectly in line with Source First. I agree with AKG550 having some kind of forgiving "sameness" to its sound. This quickly makes them rather boring - like all other headphones that I've listened to, I should add.

But that better performing units further down the chain can both reveal more information from a great source and make lesser sources more enjoyable, that is something else in my opinion. It contradicts the idea that a great system will always sound terrible with a bad source, because the faults of the bad source will be mercilessly revealed.

I can't really relate to how things work in a studio environment, as I not only have too little experience with it but also consider its final product (the song or the album) to be the work of art I must strive towards preserving the qualities of. I consider all of the processing done in the studio as intentional and part of the work of art. And I can just hope that those responsible (like you, hcl) are passionate and dedicated when working on its creation. The "watermarking" that you linked to in a different thread is clearly not part of the work of art and therefore condemnable.

[Charlie1]

But that better performing units further down the chain can both reveal more information from a great source and make lesser sources more enjoyable, that is something else in my opinion. It contradicts the idea that a great system will always sound terrible with a bad source, because the faults of the bad source will be mercilessly revealed.

I also recall you stated that your LP12 was least effected when you downgraded your Katans from aktiv to passive using the same amp. And that your Unidisk was moderately effected and your TV was most impacted in a negative way. Sounds like the same thing as your LK1 to Kairn experience, only played back in reverse.

The closest experience I've had was upgrading Linto to Urika with a Klyde. That sounded very Hi-Fi and unengaging to me, but it was inconclusive. It could have been Urika burn-in or a set-up issue. I quickly bought a low-hours Akiva as a result so never really got to the bottom of it.

I recall Tom once stating he had this type of experience with an LP12 upgrade, perhaps related to a phono stage or Valhalla, can't recall the details.

242's have a reputation for revealing poor upstream components, rightly or wrongly. I heard them driven by a passive Majik amp (with Klimax source/pre). It didn't sound annoying, just out of control and flat.

I once connected a £50 DVD player to my system and played CDs and was surprised how refined it sounded, albeit musically boring.