I also want to add that my Stax SRM-MKII with Lambdas now sound rich. They are notoriously bass shy. Not anymore. Also, the enhancement circuit works wonders with them too.
“Oh, waitress!” |
It only affects the bottom end. There is no affect beyond at all. It simply warms up the bottom end with a 9db plus (or minus) adjustment which I needed. It is very satisfying and nothing like a traditional equalizer. The device itself is flat to beyond audibility. The specs are impeccable.
The big plus is how it widens the soundstage on live recordings without sounding the least bit gimmicky. Been there - done that. I am a stickler for tone, clarity and musicality. It is a well designed and well executed circuit. Very well built. It has transformed my listening space just as I was hoping it would. Actually, I wasn't prepared for just how much.
Jeez, judging by this it sounds like the cocktail waitress served me a few already...still waiting but enjoying the music! |
Agreed. I am one of them. I spent good money on a very revealing all tube system for those same reasons. I'm just stuck in a small room and my 3.7s can't disappear due to the physical limitations of placement and can't generate quite enough bottom due in part to their design as well as the room dimensions.
This is a fix. I was well aware of that in my deliberation. But it is one heck of a good one. I've have owned and have heard many enhancers over the years and never cared for them. This one is done right. Subtle, clean and unobtrusive save for the fact that it accomplishes what I need done. I am a happy camper. |
Thanks for the comments. Good observations.
It would be really hard for me to give up the Maggies. I wanted them in the worst way since the early salad days when I first heard them powered by Audio Research. I knew I wanted tubes and Maggies. I was finally able to buy them in mid 1990 after I acquired the Carys. They were the last in the chain of my build.
Actually, they were never intended to stay in my office at home. They sounded tonally great even without the bass and imaging. It was always my intent to move them into a different area but that option never happened. Family issues precluded that move. In the intervening years, I wasn’t necessarily suffering from the lack of bass and imaging, I just missed both. My prior speakers, Celestion SL700SEs, would disappear and image like crazy in that other area, but no, I just had to have the Maggies. Well, to be fair, the Celestions suffered a catastrophic loss too painful to recount. I decided to opt for the Maggies rather than replace them.
This product brought it all together. I’m under no spell. I know it is signal/phase manipulation, but I accept that. It is well-executed, the build is exemplary and the sound very satisfying, such that, the compromise to absolutism is more than amply offset by the glorious compromise it is.
Bottom line is I get to keep my Maggies with their seductive mids and now have the warmth in the bottom with the imaging I was missing. To directly address the responses to my post, I’ll take that compromise for sure, even though I don’t view it that way at all.
I’ve been into this hobby since boyhood with soldering iron in hand and I have heard enough to know immediately what I like and don’t like; hence, despite the room acoustics, I kept this system this many years. This, I like, and my compromise is over.
I posted this as I suspect others may be in the same dilemma and need this capability. It may merit consideration. It truly is a great tool.
Now that I have shot my 5 (posts), I’ll return to the music and anonymity.
Best and happy listening to all!
|
Follow-up: This is arguably one of the best purchases, dollar-for-dollar, I have ever made in audio with the best benefit ratio and enjoyment factor of any component. It has completely exceeded my expectations and the magic simply has not worn off, as so often does, with something new and different. Been there - done that.
This is out of the ballpark. Clean, clear, articulate and involving. For those of you who own one, it might explain the sparsity of used ones on the market. :-)
|
It is now a permanent part of the landscape, meaning it has disappeared as a new component. I have it dialed in and just enjoy it. Really a good buy for my purposes.
|
I just now realized you were addressing the other poster. |
I have to concur with these observations. There is more “there” there, “more meat on the bones” and once set - “forget it”. The only exception is with acoustic bass-shy jazz recordings that benefit from a bit of boost. |
It should disappear with use.
|
Yep, still going strong and enjoying it immensely. I completely agree with the other posters’ observations: A great addition and frankly I couldn’t see/hear my system or live without it. I did bypass it for a listening session one night and at the end put it back in. Very demonstrable and very satisfying. My Maggie 3.7s sing from bass to treble - deep, rich, airy and very seductive. I consider it the icing on the cake.
|
You’ll find yourself doing this initially. I ultimately found one setting great for live acoustic music and another setting for studio recordings. In general however, I leave the setting in the middle of these two settings and leave it until I feel the need.
|
The comment about bass was right on the mark. I noticed the same thing, subtle but there, and just recently began backing off the bass to about 10:00 for some recordings (most now that I think about it).
Appreciate the tip on the tube swap. I was thinking about that too before I found the 10:00 sweet spot. I have had good success over the years finding the right tube(s) and have found they make a good bit of difference from subtle to huge in coherency.
Fortunately the Foz doesn’t suffer from that in any meaningful way at all but the point about a different tube may be just the ticket to ‘kick it up a notch’ to pilfer Emril’s line. |
I would like to amend my last post. I should have been specific. I was referring to an alternate set of speakers I use from time to time that exhibit the slight ’thickening’ I mentioned. These speakers are no slouch but they are not my main speakers: Maggie 3.7s. I listen to these alternates solely for modern studio-recorded music with a lot of slam; i.e., electric bass and hard driving drums. Kinda hard to escape that need at times being from the inner city. :-)
I do not however, experience any thickening with the Maggies, which I listen to for jazz, live and acoustically-recorded music, which is my main stay. The Jolida is awesome with the Maggies. They are clear, transparent, crisp and articulate with that incredible texture, without the Jolida interfering with these qualities. I hear fingers on frets, keyboards, the tips of drum sticks on cymbals, the breath of saxophones and trumpets and the nuances of a singer’s vocal cords. The Jolida transports me to the performance venue, breathes space into live performances and makes studio music less studio-sounding which was an unexpected dividend. I would have tossed it rather than compromise the Maggie’s exquisite qualities.
In summary, the system is incredibly engaging with the Jolida in line. A different tube may help with the other speakers but I actually don’t care as it is a slight thickening and I don’t critically listen to them anyway, I just like their slam factor. Nothing does it like a cone but I don’t prefer them for anything else.
I thought it worth mentioning if others experienced this thickening issue, but I did want to make this distinction clear.
Sorry for any confusion and hope this helps... |
^^^
Consistent with this, I have found that counter-clockwise appears to be better for studio recordings that are artificially wide. It makes the sound stage more believable. Just a touch can help in those instances - only when it suits you.
I have found that clockwise is best for live recordings. I go full on with it. I characterize the effect as "where is the cocktail waitress'. It puts you right in the venue. I was stunned when I first heard it. If I had the room for the Maggies to breathe, maybe I wouldn't need it but I gotta say, it is simply phenomenal. It 'sucks' you in.
It is a great tool and doesn't change the tonality or timber in any way. If it did, it would have been long gone in short order. For those who have the room and treatment, it may not be for them. For me, after having lived with it, it is the sh*t. :-)
|
@sgordon1: Thank you for this citation, good sir. Your conclusion is spot on, "Enter the SS-X". Precisely what the SS-X is for!
In a cozy space, such as mine, you can adjust the imaging to your liking to make it more believable. I always bemoaned the artificial separation in studio recordings but no more. With live recordings, jeepers is all I have to say! "Oh, waitress!" :-).
To give life to this "Oh, waitress" schmaltz, lemme ’splain. I have a recording of John Coltrane live at the Village. It is a cozy club setting. Right in the middle of the drum solo, there is a percussive noise that is out of place. I always assumed it was an anomaly of some sort on the drum kit because it was buried down so deep - hardly noticeable - but there none-the-less. When I added a tweak I had been eyeing for some time, and played that cut, that noise became immediately obvious. It was a glass dropped out in the audience - and now heard clear as a bell! Needless to say that tweak has been in my system ever since.
With the addition of the SS-X, I can now tell exactly where in the club that person who dropped that glass was sitting relative to the stage! Incredible resolution. Put another way, it did not obscure that extraneous noise, a testament to its transparency, and brought out its spatial location in the live space. Hence, why I say, "Oh, waitress".
I suspect that even in the best of spaces, you can adjust the recording to your liking, particularly studio recordings. Indispensable.
|
I have Magnapan 3.6Rs which only go down to 34hz with a 3db roll off. I use a Marchand X-over with a 35 hz cutoff but it is a gradual slope downwards. I’ve not had a reason to use my sub anymore frankly, the SS-X brings in just enough bass energy in the music to make me happy if need be. One of the side effects of turning up the ’space’ is losing a bit of bass energy on some recordings, so even though the SS-X is centered at 20hz, that also means it extends upward from that center frequency. Put another way, there a sloping boost curve at the upper end of the center frequency which, depending on your speakers, you may hear the energy at the upper end of the curve and the lower end of your speakers before they roll off.
N.B.: I previously stated I have 3.7s. That was a typo.
|
I think you will be pleased. The enhancement for less than ideal speaker placement is a real life saver. The bass enhancement is subtle but satisfying. Personally, I like the enhancement circuit on it own merit, speaker placement not withstanding.
There isn’t a day that goes by that I have regrets about buying the SS-X. As a fan of Jim Fosgate designs, I took the plunge. My system is revealing and extremely musical to me and I would never consider a gismo - period - would have tossed it immediately. In point of fact, I have only grown to like it more. There are no compromises and no tradeoffs. It is worth every penny. These Maggies put you right in the venue.
I have never (or rarely if ever) posted since joining this site a few years back but I felt compelled to share this. Enjoy and please post your impressions.
|
Correction (again): “....a day goes by that I have ‘no’ regrets...”. Damned fat fingers. 😎
|
@sgordon1
How does the upgrade SSX sound?
It still remains an integral part of my system and sounds as amazing as it did when I installed it. No regrets and no 'meh' syndrome. It is arguably a ’fix’ but what a fix it is. Set right, it is amazing. I haven’t experienced any ill effects or loss of any kind so I quit a/b-ing it many moons ago. It took to my system like hand in glove.
|
