WC,
Oops, I think I made some mistakes in my previous post about the Dag integrated. It seems that any input goes through the entire electronics, which is the tone control circuit, preamp stage, power amp stage. If you used your Ref 10 into the Dag, you got a 4th stage of amplification and circuitry, but at least you got the benefits of the tone control circuit. Not having a manual or any conversation with a Dag dealer, it appears to me that you cannot bypass any stage of the Dag--you just take the integrated as a complete integrated package. As such, if you don't want any more power, it does everything else you want superlatively. Since tone controls are important for the Neo, an alternative is the Lux preamp with its tone controls. I don't know of any other SOTA preamp with tone controls. You could still use your Ref 10 to evaluate SOTA powerful amps, but to see if you can improve on the Dag integrated, you need a preamp like the Lux with tone controls. The other way would be to get a separate EQ like the Rane or digital EQ which other people here are knowledgeable about. That opens up a larger selection of SOTA preamps to consider, or even still use your Ref 10. But if you don't want to bother with a stand alone EQ, the Lux with its tone controls would be a great way to go. The complete Lux package of preamp and amp would challenge the Dag integrated. If you want more power, you could double up on the M900u monos. However, using bridged amps means that allowable speaker loads double, so although bridged amps have more power into 8 ohms, they are more uncomfortable into 1 ohm. Also, although bridged amps give more power into reasonable loads, the extra circuitry reduces the detail and transparency at moderate volumes. At least a single M900u is relatively cheap, to give you an idea of the tonal qualities of the complete Lux package versus the Dag package. |
Guido,
I agree with your caution until you listen. I like your methodology. But in your experience with other amps, do you agree with my theoretical discussion that bridged amps may be less transparent than the unbridged setting in the same amp at moderate listening levels? |
Guido,
I look forward to your review. I also want you to address some concerns I have about bridgeable amps. First, there is double the amount of circuitry in the chain for each channel, which would decrease the transparency, detail, resolution at moderate levels. Of course, you can get 4X the power into 8 ohms, which is an advantage for some people. But subtle resolution occurs at power levels of a fraction of 1 watt for speakers of average efficiency, so I would think that for this criterion, the bridged version is at a disadvantage. Second, bridgeable amps don’t like very low impedance lows, such as from electrostatics at HF. Most companies advise not to use bridged amps into impedances of less than 4. For your Vienna dynamic speakers, this is likely not a consideration, although I read that ARC tube amps exhibit tighter sound from the 8 ohm taps than the 4 ohm taps, when driving Wilsons whose nominal impedance is 4. The ARC tube amp may not be relevant to your evaluation of the Rowland SS amp, however. So I request that you include your evaluation of the Rowland M535 in the area of resolution at moderate levels, comparing standard setup to bridged. Also, how does a single M535 compare to a 525?
[
You might have seen Merrill’s August announcement that the stereo Element 114 has similar speed/resolution as the 118/116, at a projected retail price of $9-12K. He claims that the 118/116 have somewhat better spatial qualities than the 114, but the differences are small. See his post as the first entry after searching A-gon under Merrill Element. Read his statements several replies down. Of course, the 114 will have less power--we don’t know yet how much. But the 114 looks to be an outstanding value for a SOTA contender. My guess is 150 watts into 8 ohms, which might keep doubling as impedance load is halved. This should satisfy most people who care more about quality than quantity, at an attractive price.
|
mrdecibel,
Several lines of evidence point to the Neo HF being rolled off compared to other speakers WC has tried. 1-2 years ago, when he had the ML Montis, 13A, 15A and CLX, he found them to be satisfactory in HF when they were 1-2 feet away from the front wall. But the Neo at that position was rolled off in HF. The Neo certainly improved with the greater 5 foot distance. We can only imagine that the HF of the smaller ML would have more HF output with 5 foot distance, so the HF of the smaller ML would still have the same relative increase compred to the Neo. With my own electrostatics, Hf are more evident with greater distance in the back of them. Also, his experience with the tone controls on the Dag showed that the HF were good with +4 for the Neo, and he speculated -1 for the Magico. WC's listening experience correlates with mine over the years in comparing large panels to smaller ones. Large panels are great for bass especially, then the midrange, but NOT for the HF, which get smeared due to multipath and dispersion considerations. It is an integral calculus problem. The tonal balance of large panels is weighted towards lower freq compared to that of small panels. And with curved panels, the situation is magnified. The CLX has a skinny curved panel for the mids/HF, so it is the best design from ML if you want more HF, coherency and speed from 360 Hz on up. The Neo is for people like WC who want more dynamics as a top priority.
|
mrdecibel,
Yes, I believe what you say about the superior resolution of the passive Luminous. But only 1 of my violin recordings is brilliant enough to not require any EQ, so I listen to that recording with the EQ at flat. No doubt I could enjoy it more with the Luminous rather than the flat Rane. But other typical recordings are as dull as dishwater by comparison, unless I boost the HF. You may not appreciate my perspective of hearing the brilliant sound under my chin, which is much brighter than anyone else hears. I am glad tjassoc will meet me and hear what I am talking about. I wish I could meet you and play for you--where do you live?
|
mikepaul,
I agree with all your comparisons, except for EQ. I know it goes against audiophile religion, but you should try an excellent EQ like the Rane, plugged into your power amp. The Rane has additional 6 dB of gain with balanced connections, so it can take the place of a line stage, and as I and mrdecibel say, it is better than most line stages for transparency, etc. Remember that WC had reservations about the inadequate HF of the Neo until he boosted the treble using the Dag. Your ML 15A probably has a tonal balance more towards the HF compared to the Neo, so you might not feel EQ is necessary for you, but I promise you will be shocked if you try it. For $200, you will have fun, and will probably change your thinking about EQ. I became a convert to EQ in 1995, when my first recordings of an orchestra in a dull hall were DEAD. Then I started recording with the EQ in the chain, and then I had the greatest recordings. BIG DIFFERENCE, second only to my discovery of electrostatic speakers 15 years earlier.
|
WC,
I listened to Mi Viejo on the videos. With the Christine, it appears to be recorded louder by 3-6 dB compared to the Dag HD, so I cannot compare the sound quality with the Christine vs Dag.
Perhaps for now, until you get the heavy duty stand, you can use the stands that the JC1+ are now sitting on, for the Mephisto. In an earlier video, the left stand is supporting the ARC sitting on the JC1+, so that is about 100 lbs or more. I don't know what maximum weight that stand can support, but perhaps the 2 stands together can support the 108 kg of the Mephisto. Leave 1" space between the 2 stands, and let the left and right feet of the Mephisto be supported by the left and right stands, respectively. That should help a lot.
|
techno,
No, the transparency and resolution of the Mephisto should not be corrupted by the Ayre or anything that adds midrange richness. You couldn’t PAY me to do that. I hope the Gryphon Pandora preamp is coming, which probably has consistent character as the Mephisto.
The Christine preamp is active, not passive. |
Guido,
Thanks. I await your evaluation. Except for power where the bridged Rowland M535 will have the advantage, a highly competitive alternative will be the Element 114 at a similar price. I hope you have an opportunity to do that comparison. |
mrdecibel,
Absolutely correct with your horns. You can get more dynamics with low watt amps then WC will ever get with any powerhouse. Your highly efficient speakers don't need an active line stage for gain, so your passive Luminous with its purity and lack of coloration gives you more resolution, etc. What power amp are you using?
|
WC,
As I discussed before, your Dag integrated within its power limitation will beat any combination of preamp without tone controls and power amp. Suppose the best Dag preamp plus the best Dag power amp has better circuitry than the Dag integrated. It won't be better by that much. However, the ability to boost the HF for the Neo is of paramount importance and outweighs any superiority of other electronics. You might like the relative warmth of the Ref 10 plus Plinius/ARC amps but they probably won't give you the resolution of the Dag integrated. Don't waste your money on a second Plinius. Yeah, you'll get more power, but everything else will be mediocre compared to the neutral Dag. Your only practical alternative is the Lux preamp with its tone controls, plus any power amp you like.
|
WC,
But what about the HF of Ref 10 plus Plinius? You like bass oomph, but usually accuracy with tight, fast impact is associated with less oomph, as in the Magico compared to Focal. If this combo's HF without treble boost are still more prominent than with the Dag integrated with its treble boost, that means the Dag has a rolled off HF personality without the tone controls. I kinda doubt it, because Dag is known more for accuracy than euphonic tubey sound. This is probably why Dag power amp owners like ARC tube preamps to soften the powerful tight Dag blows. Others here have described the Plinius as being warm. Very confusing. With the Neo, you have to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate power amps using a reference preamp, say the Ref 10 for now, although I think the Lux preamp would be very useful and excellent, as described above by atownkeep. His Neo plus the complete Lux is probably awesome. Go visit, and boost the treble on his Lux preamp for excitement in percussion, etc. The Lux preamp would be your best money spent now. As you said, the Lux combo is probably unbeatable, especially for the price. If you can drive to Texas, bring your Ref 10/Plinius to compare to his Lux combo.
|
WC,
I am excited to hear about your AWAKENING (words of the cost conscious grey9hound, and I agree). Thanks for your honest reporting, which opens up consideration of the Plinius as a great sounding cheap amp that should interest everyone here. So it seems that in comparison, Dag has a warm personality. It is NOT an issue of compatibility with speakers, etc. The Dag is warm, period. The tone controls to boost HF would make the Dag less warm, or more to the relative neutrality of the Plinius. How does the Dag with treble boost compare to the Ref 10 plus Plinius? Since the Ref 10 has a little warmth, that means the Plinius by itself is probably very neutral. Believe me, if you wanted to save the most money, get the Rane ME 60 for $200 and just use the Rane as a line stage plus EQ, going into the Plinius. This will give you impressive transparency and neutrality and enough gain for most of your music. But if you need the additional gain of the Ref 10, you can still insert the Rane between the Ref 10 and Plinius. The Rane is quite transparent, although not as much as the unique passive Luminous of mrdecibel. The very flexible 30 band adjustments will make you a fine sound tailor--very important. I am now thinking that this is a better option than getting the much more expensive Lux preamp with its tone controls. From all descriptions here of the Lux electronics, it is still warm, possibly comparable or more so than your Ref 10. I believe that the chain of Ref 10+Rane+Plinius might be better in every way than the Lux preamp + Plinius. And you only spend $200 instead of many !000's for the Lux.
This is a milestone for you, because you enjoy the less warm Ref 10 plus Plinius combo more than the relatively warm Dag. Clarity and detail are most important and exciting, and you will eventually realize that warmth gets boring after the honeymoon is over. Maybe amps like the Boulder are at the extreme of sterility, but for now you have the Plinius which seems ideal. Once you realize the importance and excitement of detail/neutrality, you will want to stay away from warm tube stuff. Tube amps like higher impedances, so they will give good dynamics for lower freq, but tube amp output into the very low impedance of the Neo's HF is much worse, which skews the tonal balance away from the HF. This is why tube lovers like them with electrostatics, because they already like rolled off HF which enable toleration of higher volumes. And remember mrdecibel's post that his experience with tube amps was terrible for bass control and accuracy.
|
bigddesign3,
I feel that tone controls are at the top of the list for what's important. They don't cure every illness, but go a long way. For example, I recently tried the excellent Classe D200 amp. With the same EQ settings as for my Bryston 2.5B SST2, the Classe was significantly rolled off in HF and sweeter/warmer in the midrange. I increased the HF some more on the EQ and got some improvement in neutrality and HF, but the sound was distorted in certain ways. But with my Mytek Brooklyn amp, the differences from the Bryston were less, and I was able to boost the HF and get more overall satisfaction than with the Bryston. So I purchased the Mytek, thanks to the benefit from EQ. It didn't work out for the Classe. In many cases, differences between excellent amps (also preamps) are less than the differences between EQ settings tailored to your preferences.
|
ricred1,
Yes, compatibility is always a factor, which is why the ultimate test is your own listening rather than blindly trusting a reviewer's comments, especially if you are spending big bucks. However, it is also true that electronics have a certain house sound. In the old days, Conrad Johnson (CJ) made syrupy sweet tube stuff, which was a basic characteristic with many diverse systems. ARC made more neutral stuff, with variations within their house sound. I would not expect any CJ system to sound less warm than using ARC in the same system. Of course, there are individual exceptions with certain models, but the house sound concept is generally true. I am delighted to hear that this particular Plinius seems to be better in most ways than the Dag for WC's Neo at a much cheaper price. I suspect that Plinius and Dag each have their own house sound, applicable to many systems. Suppose you have a warm speaker, and the warmer Dag makes the system even warmer. If you crave warmth above everything else, then you will say that you like Dag with that speaker, more than the Plinius with that speaker. It would still be true that the Plinius makes that speaker sound less warm. That doesn't mean the Plinius is incompatible with that speaker--it just means that you like lots of warmth and prefer the Dag with it.
|
grey9hound,
I agree with nearly all you just said. It is certainly factual. You are right that as an immersed player, I hear my closer musicians emphasized in comparison to the ones on the other side of the stage. But even the ones on the other side have more impact to me than if I was sitting in the audience several rows back. Everything is more detailed and exciting, although admittedly some things more so than others. I have had the experience of walking in from the back of the hall, late to the rehearsal, walking closer, then finally sitting on the stage close up. The balance is fine from far back, remains fine closer, but closer yields more detail and excitement. It is not just because things are louder close up. The tonal balance gets more brilliant at a closer distance.
The question of brilliance versus brightness is interesting. Brilliance is the ideal, and brightness certainly has a negative connotation. Brilliance is the utmost revelation of detail at all freq in a coherent manner. This is the true character of live, unamplified music. I will admit that I am creating more brightness with the EQ, which is the preferential emphasis of HF in sometimes an unnatural way. But the tonal balance of live music is brighter at a closer distance, although in live music it is natural. This is because the shorter wavelengths of HF are absorbed by layers of air more than lower freq. My electrostatic speakers are far less colored and more natural than most dynamic speakers, so I get away with the brightness which comes across as also more naturally brilliant. Still, even my speakers are not the real thing, although very close to it with accurate electronics and correct natural volume levels. There are compromises on the path to more brilliance, as some tonal aberrations creep in. Try this on your car radio system. Experiment with increasing the treble in the various settings. Without tone controls, the car radio is really muddy, but with some treble boost the increased clarity is worth the tradeoff in tonal balance. What good is "correct" tonal balance if the whole thing is equally muddy at all freq? I have gotten free tickets to concerts, but the far back seat had sound that was so muddy that I preferred listening to the sound in the car at the same volume level.
On a more basic level, I realize that most people prefer laid back sound. Why is this? I am certainly unhappy about being assaulted with too loud sound, whether live or from an audio system. But I want to hear all the detail in my music. Why wouldn't anyone else feel the same? We can enjoy music casually from the car radio or on youtube with the bad stock sound of the computer. But if you go through the time, trouble and expense of setting up and improving your audio system, why bother if you are not getting the most detail out of it? And you have to tell your family you need a dedicated room for audio, so they are put off. Don't interpret "detail" as a bad word--when you have a revealing system the detail just jumps out effortlessly and then you really enjoy the music more. It is more relaxing since you don't have to listen keenly to get it. How's that seeming paradox for someone who claims they want to just relax with the laid back sound of their system?
|
WC,
Good observations on the merits of the cheap Plinius. Except that the cheap Plinius is giving you 190 MPH. Trust me, adding the cheap Rane will give you 250 MPH. I don't know much about cars, but in that area, more money buys higher performance engines, although maybe an expert would correct me on that. But in audio, as you have just discovered, more money does not necessarily buy better performance. In fact, the audio industry caters to fickle, musically uninformed audiophiles who want to impress others with the money they spend. In many areas of life, the elite rich enjoy the fact that not many people can afford what they have. The item doesn't HAVE to be better--it just has to be expensive. I am not a basher of the rich, because they have earned their money and deserve respect for their success. They are entitled to spend their money as they choose. Sometimes it buys better quality, and other times it doesn't. |
mrdecibel,
Both you and I are not badgering anyone to accept our advice, but our experience and desire to help by imparting our knowledge is why we spend time posting. The plain fact is that I believe one's chosen tonal balance is even slightly more important than transparency. The system doesn't even have to be of high quality--for example my stock car radio system benefits enormously from the tone controls. That car system is so rolled off that even boosting the treble to the max is still musically better than without it. Most music is improved, and the announcer's voice is clearer although admittedly tonally off. I prefer the tonal aberrations to muddy sound which wrecks everything. To choose an extreme case, put your Rane in your system, but REDUCE freq above 2000 Hz by 12 dB. This will make your previously excellent system sound so muddy and worse than any car radio without tone control adjustments. It is obvious the EQ has a profound effect, good and bad. It just needs to be used carefully, using YOUR ears as a guide. No need to call in audio consultants to do measurements. Since WC himself admitted that the Neo was ho-hum initially, and that boosting the treble by +4 was a big benefit, I continue to discuss this. Other people here have found EQ useful.
By the way, I still enjoy music from poor audio formats and systems, like youtube, and sitting way off axis relaxing in the bedroom listening to a decent boom box system. And there is nothing as musically satisfying as hearing great old violinists in 1930 recordings, like Fritz Kreisler, George Enesco. Today's young violinists have good technique, but more superficial musicality than the great old masters, so even though today's recordings have better sound, that's not enough. So I listen both for the excitement of modern sound and for soulful artistry in mediocre old sound.
|
twoleftears,
Love your ID. Yes, bridged amps usually are not recommended for very low impedance loads. The same is true for a single stereo amp with a topology of parallel circuits to boost output. WC may get away with this because the low impedance of the Neo is only in HF, so if the music doesn't contain much HF, it is OK. For midrange and bass, pure electrostatics can have very high impedances like 20 or more ohms, so bridging may work for certain music. However, the woofers in the Neo are used fairly high into the midrange, so the impedance of the woofers and the stat panel may not be that high. Unlike dynamic speakers with unpredictable impedance curves, stats are like capacitors which have an inverse relationship of impedance to frequency. |
mikepaul,
Instead of your sarcasm about the Rane, why don't you open your mind and try it the way I have described. I could come to your place and show you myself. Better yet, since you are in Central NJ, meet me on Dec 16 at 3 PM rehearsal and 4 PM concert at Princeton Universalist Church at 50 Cherry Hill Road off 206. I'll give you a demo that tops any audio show. The piece is Handel's Messiah.
WC disproved your claim that the Ref 10 could have made the difference. It was the Plinius. If the Plinius sound doesn't change, then the Dag is dead. It is NOT about the power, as bigddesign3 would like to believe. The Dag just has a warmer, less sparkling personality at any volume level, period.
|
mikepaul,
I will take your advice and tell my guest at the sweet shop to do it my way using your clever descriptions. See, I can be funny, too.
Seriously, join me at the concert. No men's room concert out of respect, no ice cream, but there are goodies at intermission.
|
It's a compliment to my influence that I inspire so many jokes. This forum may one day be renamed, "the expensive amp joke."
|
mrdecibel,
My friend, you are making a few mistakes. Since you have not personally heard the Ref 10 in your own system, you cannot make a judgment that the Rane as a line stage is dirtier than the Ref 10. The word, "dirtier," is misleading and ambiguous. Any tube line stage will be smoother than the Rane to the extent that it rolls off the HF. To the uneducated listener, the tube stage will also be smoother than the Luminous since it rounds off the "edges" compared to the more transparent and clearer Luminous. This type of listener may think that the Luminous is "dirtier," but is missing out on the fact that "warts and all" clarity is the ideal, and the true characteristic of live music. Live music is both nasty and beautiful at different times.
Second, you make an artificial distinction between tone and detail. Live music, by definition, has both tone and detail at the highest level of quality. You acknowledge that electrostatics have the lowest distortion, and the most accuracy in tone/detail at modest volume levels. But large scale dynamics are very important to you, making stats unacceptable for your purposes. That's OK--you are entitled to your preferences and value system. Someone can enjoy the Neo for its open window AND accurate tone quality, at times raucous and at other times smooth and sweet.
Third, I find it odd that you say someone is nuts to drive the expensive Neo with cheap electronics (at least the Plinius, but also the Rane). Apart from your Luminous, you are on record saying that the Rane (especially your modified one) as a line stage is better than most semi-expensive line stages. For some time you have extolled the greatness of your system, all components of which are inexpensive. I believe you on those assertions. It is a credit to your long experience in the audio business where you have seen the expensive mediocrities foisted upon the naive audiophile, and you truly enjoy the superiority of your modestly priced components. You also are justifiably proud of your ability to assemble this system, being independently resourceful and not having to put yourself in the gullible position of being swallowed by the jaws of the audio sharks in the business. I am glad that WC has reached the milestone of seeking reasonably priced superb components.
|
WC,
Now that you have seen the light about the merits of a few cheap items, I could recommend other cheap amps to compete with the Plinius. For your needs, the best would be the top amp from Emotiva. I heard last year's top XPA2 gen 3. It was powerful, fast, sparkling, with even a little sweetness. You can try it for 30 days risk free direct from Emotiva. The new Reference is more powerful, and about $1500. Look for a holiday special. The next choice would be my Mytek Brooklyn Amp, which is 300 watts into 8.4,2 ohms. It is possibly the most neutral of the group of Plinius, Emotiva, Mytek, but not sterile or with biting HF. Only $2K at Music Direct with free 60 day trial. The sound was not significantly changed at over 100 hours break in. I now have about 400 hours on it.
But I wouldn't try these other amps just yet. Let your Plinius settle in, and enjoy it for what it does for your music, not because you want to impress audio people. You are actually in a nice position similar to me, because I am awaiting the promised SOTA Merrill Element 114 at a reasonable $9-12K. I wouldn't even spend money on an additional Plinius until the Elements are evaluated. I guarantee that I will be making my report here. Who knows, if the Elements are not what I think, I will consider the Plinius. Thanks for your assessment of that. For now, don't even consider spending money on expensive ARC tube amps or others. They may have the romantic glow you like, but I predict they won't have the sparkle of the Plinius. Don't spend a lot of money on dinosaur technology--it's time to consider new tech like the Elements.
You may have ignored my previous advice on all these amps, but you now have a different perspective and I hope you consider them. |
mrdecibel,
I just have the hearing acuity of someone my age, not bad, not great. But I have judgment and experience, and so do you. At times, you have also voiced strong recommendations, which is fine because you are sincere and passionate and qualified to do so. Instead of claiming that your horns are grossly inferior to stats, I make it objective and say that for the priorities you have, the horns are the logical choice. That is not a God complex. The same goes for people who like tubes. We and everyone else know the disadvantages of tubes, but it is proper to say that if someone likes a "je ne sais qua" or romantic type of sound, it is logical that they would prefer tubes. (By the way, if politicians stopped calling each other names, and instead said that the other position is understandable if certain assumptions are made, we'd all have some respect for them instead of what is going on now. I am not engaging in name calling, but trying to be dignified and somewhat scholarly in providing useful info.)
You are right about many of the deficiencies of a stock Rane. Nevertheless, it is a great product as is, for the purpose intended. That idoesn't suit your needs, which is fine for you. But if I came to listen to your system, I might find that I preferred it with the Rane, adjusted in ways I cannot predict. Just don't say that is not needed in your system--just say more precisely that your sensibilities prefer not using it.
But for the purposes of WC's thread, he has agreed with me that the tone controls help the system performance with the Dag. I have little doubt that some form of EQ would help get even more performance (sparkle, etc.) from the Plinius, even with the Ref 10 in the system. If he didn't require very high volumes, the Ref 10 electronics could be bypassed. This would be especially true of the Emotiva amp with its high 29 dB of gain. That could give an advantage to the Emotiva compared to other amps with the more usual 25-26 dB of gain. Your experience with the Luminous certainly proves how eliminating electronics yields great benefits. Even I, with my lowly and somewhat flawed Rane am able to eliminate the need for a line stage.
|
mrdecibel,
It is true this thread started about just amps. But since all systems are a chain of components, it is much more informative to discuss amps in the context of a system. Of course, nobody listens to an amp alone, they listen to the whole system of which the amp is an important part. Then some people feel the preamp is the most important part, others say the cartridge, speaker, etc. One reason this thread is the most popular is that all these things are discussed, which provide entry points for many different perspectives. And I even got in a comment about politicians, which was relevant to how to have dispassionate discussions with facts instead of emotions.
|
dguitarnut,
You are a better poet than me, thanks. Off topic, there is a wonderful book on the benefits of a grain-free diet, called NO GRAIN, NO PAIN, by Dr. Peter Osborne. A play on the bodybuilder's saying, "no pain, no gain." Osborne has a huge practice in Texas. Excellent videos on youtube.
|
david_ten,
Thanks for the quote. I should re-read the book.
|
Guido,
Your cultured, insightful humor is welcomed by me, and I hope others. By comparison, others' jokes just represent juvenile, distasteful sarcasm with in some cases actual ill will instead of appreciation for my well meaning advice. Even you have been criticized for your lengthy discussions of the Elements with me, with the accuser not appreciating its relevance to anyone wise enough to value it. I certainly do, even if nobody else is listening.
Mrdecibel,
I did not make an apology for anything I said. I just provided more explanation of what I said in case my thoughts were not clear. Since you and I respect each other's knowledge and experience, it is inappropriate and disrespectful for you to second XX's sarcasm by saying "XX, LMAO". I know you said you are sorry if you offended me, so I will take that as your apology. Now, let's move on, in friendship and informative comments, as always.
|
WC,
I don’t think any Gryphon amp would be dramatically different than your Diablo 300, which was demolished by the Plinius. Your wife also said that the Dag was more open and sparkly than your Diablo. Since your Plinius is still more sparkly than the Dag (it is not the Ref 10 influence as you noted), the Plinius should be much better in these ways than any Gryphon, except for maybe power specs, but you have found the Plinius wonderful in every way. I wonder what your wife thinks of the Plinius. She would probably be delighted with the sound, and say your search for amps is just about over, especially for such expensive things. Why don’t you just settle down with the superb Plinius, then in due time consider other cheap amps, before you go for the expensive stuff. I gave you my list, and let’s hear from others like grey9hound, maplegrovemusic with their lists. Maplegrove has the 2 big models of the KingSound electrostatics, so his comments would be interesting.
|
ron17, what's wrong with YOU that you cannot read my reasoned statements with much comprehension? Do YOU like spending money on overpriced back breaking amps that are not LIKELY to work out, especially since his Plinius has demolished the expensive Dag? He has the freedom to spend his own money to decide for himself, but I am empathetic when he says his money is tight after spending a lot on the Neo. Since the speaker is the most important component of the total system, it is good to spend always limited money on the best speaker you can get, and try to save money elsewhere. Thankfully, he has found a gem in the Plinius. Where is YOUR empathy and common sense? What is your contribution in the area of searching for great quality amps at reasonable prices, which most people here are interested in? |
WC,
I am glad you now admit that the Neo never sounded better than with the Plinius. I assure you that I have no God complex or dictator mentality, but I am just enthusiastically trying to help you appreciate great things at a very reasonable price. Although RIAA has correctly warned me not to pontificate about things I have not personally heard in a known system, I want to call your attention to a review posted here recently about the Block amps. The reviewer said that instrumental decays were attenuated. This means that resolution, especially in HF is reduced. If the Block were lightweight and cheap, you could take a shot at it, but at over 200 lbs and expensive, it is a negative proposition. I also believe that Gryphon, like most companies, has a house sound, in this case being laid back and warm, so if you appreciate the exciting clarity of the Plinius, neither the Block nor Gryphon are likely to work out.
I also give credit to thezaks for his info on the Emotivas. They are serious amps, with sound in the camp of Plinius, and even much cheaper. And by the way, Dave, any amp can be given more body/weight with simple tweaking of the EQ, which provide more extensive changes than with power cords or other cables, although the milder effect of the cables could be just enough to make you happy. The important thing is that you didn't find the sound bright/harsh, so giving more weight is easier to fix than fixing harshness.
|
grey9hound,
You may be satisfied with the detail in your system at present, but the nature of hearing is that you don't know what you are missing. Take a walk with a friend much younger. You think you hear all the birds and ambiance, and your friend does agree with your observations, but then your friend describes the subtle sound in the distance. But you don't hear it. You may still be content, but objectively it is true that your friend's better hearing enables him to hear more detail. Maybe you don't have much experience in the concert hall at different distances, but it is objectively true that the closer you are, the more detail is heard. This can be objectively demonstrated by making recordings at different distances, and hearing the playback, as I have done in my patient experiments. So perhaps your young friend picks up the same detail sitting back in the 15th row as you do in the 3rd row. The 3rd row sound is natural and brilliant, not to be described negatively as "in your face." And your young friend sitting in the 3rd row has a fantastic exciting experience of even more detail. Music is about excitement. Even WC now appreciates the exciting sound he now has with the Plinius.
|
ron17,
I agree that speaker placement is most important. I will keep an open mind about digital EQ, thanks. But bigddesign3 I think was the one who said that analog EQ is better. I wonder what are his reasons.
|
grey9hound,
I am sorry if you don’t find my latest comments to you useful. I will stop as long as you don’t mention it again. I was only responding to your latest re-statement of your position on that subject.
By the way, my best live jazz experience was at Preservation Hall in New Orleans in 2005 right before Katrina. It was like a hollowed cave. The small space was so live and exciting from the hard rocks instead of soft plushy material of most clubs and concert halls. Just 2-3 benches for about 15 listeners. The musicians and listeners were intimately connected. It was just a few bucks for 30 min of music including requests. People were lined up waiting to get in, for good reason. Have you been there? Where do you live? |
grey9hound,
Again, I don't dispute the factual statements you make. Just acknowledge the factual statements I have made. Of course, I don't know the level of detail and overall satisfaction you have with your system and music, because I haven't been to your home, and even if I were to come, I can't perceive what your brain perceives. Will anyone be able to measure someone else's brain waves and then input it into their own brain to perceive it exactly the way someone else does? I wonder if that problem will be solved in 500 years. But it is still true that despite your current satisfaction, YOU don't know what YOU are missing now. Maybe that question is unimportant to you, because you are satisfied. But there is more tube rolling that can always be done, and one day you will discover a tube you like better than what you now think is the best. You may find that this new tube gives everything you presently like, but in an enhanced way, with more detail or whatever characteristic you may discover in the future but may not realize now. Or you could acquire a better format of a favorite recording, and discover that there is more information and detail in the music that was previously unknown to you. The possibilities as an experimental audiophile are endless. |
mrdecibel,
It would be fruitful to discuss on another level why I think EQ is important. I recall you saying that when you made recordings, you found the EQ helpful No component CREATES detail--the ideal is to reveal the detail that is present on the recording, and not obliterate it through distorted electronics, speakers, etc. I think we agree on that. For that, your Luminous passive is just about the best. But we should consider psychoacoustically how a listener perceives music and sound in general. Suppose the choral conductor tells the male singers to belt it out louder than the female singers. At that point, the female singers will be still singing their part at the same volume level, so the microphone will still pick up their sound just as detailed as before. And the waveforms of the female higher freq will still be seen on the waveform of the complete music, but they will be more submerged and harder to tease out. So the listener will perceive that the higher frequencies of the females are lessened and the enunciation of the female words will not be perceived as well. The total information will still be there, but the HF will be perceived as lessened, with lessened detail at those freq. There are many reviews of components where it is said that one item sounds more flesh and blood and the other item sounds more detailed but more skeletal. We are all making the choice between these 2 types of sound with every component, whether it is a speaker, electronics, cable, etc. Of course, nothing is pure skeletal and nothing is pure soft flesh, so every component falls within the spectrum between these 2 extremes. The EQ is just a convenient way to offer different positions within this spectrum. By the way, I have tried bypassing the Rane not by pressing the 2 bypass buttons, but by removing it completely and plugging the Benchmark DAC straight into the power amp, which would probably be comparable to using the Luminous between the DAC and power amp. In this experiment, I noted a more transparent overall sound, but the higher freq and overall life were greatly reduced compared to using the EQ with my boosted HF settings at 10 Khz and above between the DAC and power amp. (Of course, the filters are not sharp, so there is some boost down into the midrange.) These were for modern recordings with full range freq, not musically wonderful old recordings. Technically using no EQ would reveal more overall info, but psychoacoustically it is nowhere near as satisfying as hearing the relatively increased info in midrange to HF using the Rane. All speakers have major deficiencies in trying to sound like the real thing, so I just use the EQ to get the speaker to have the tonal balance and thrilling clarity that I hear close up. If I preferred a laid back tonal balance, I would adjust the EQ differently, or maybe not use it at all, and be happy to use the Luminous alone with the power amp.
Try the tone controls of your humble stock car radio system. Set to flat, it is really bad. Then increase the treble by just +1, and you will find that you hear more in the music and hear better enunciation of the announcer's voice. The tonal balance won't disturb you much, if at all. Then try increasing the treble to +2, all the way to +6. At some point you will hate the skewed tonal balance, so maybe for you the optimum setting might be +2. For me it is +6. At +6, I can hear the obvious skewed balance, but I accept it in return for the much increased detail I hear. The system is so dull and muddy without the treble boost so I find +6 is ideal. If I then transplanted the electronics into my electrostatic speakers, I might find that +2 would be the optimum setting.
|
mrdecibel,
I am surprised that you choose to rant about my persistence, and describe my thoughts as gibberish spurs from my mouth instead of trying to engage in a fruitful discussion about the points I just made. If you just want to berate me for being pushy and having a seeming God complex (both of which are false if you have the dignity to admit it), I don't have to waste my time posting, trying to have a fruitful discussion with you or anyone else. It is obvious that I have spent a lot of time doing this. If the payoff is an enlightened discussion, that is fun and meaningful and worth my time. But if all I hear from you is "cut if out," or "XX, LMAO" (jokes are funny, but not if they are aimed at my expense) I will not waste my time with all this. Over and out.
|
thezaks,
OK, I re-read your post on the last page, and t realize that you found the Emotiva thin for HT. I don't know if you listened to it in stereo, comparing another stereo amp, and came to the same conclusion. Either way, power cord matching or EQ can be employed. I read a little on Emotiva's own forum that the new Reference might be fuller with the even higher power. We agree that Emotiva makes excellent amps, and not just for the price.
|
thezaks,
Recaeling your comment about the thin quality of the Emotiva, I can't remember whether you meant for 2 channel or 7.1 HT. Although I have no experience with quality HT, I can say that playing a mono recording through 2 stereo speakers gives a fuller quality than through 1 speaker in true mono. Obviously the sound field is greater with more speakers, and that contributes to more fullness or weight. So I suspect that the Emotiva for only 2 channels will sound thinner than an Emotiva for many more HT channels. But any amp will show the same differences. Maybe you already did this, but the Emotiva for 2 channel should be compared to another amp for 2 channel.
WC long ago noted that for 5 channels, it is better to get a stereo amp plus a 3 channel amp, rather than a single 5 channel amp. One reason is the shared power supply dilutes the power to each channel, so a stereo amp at 300W/ch may only have 200W/ch each for 5-7 channels. Regarding power cords, the flagship SAE 2 HP stereo amp uses two 20A power cords, so SAE thinks that for ultimate performance, this is better than a single power cord for both channels, the way most stereo amps are configured. This would mimic the idea of mono amps, but just mounted on the same chassis.
|
WC,
+10 for your enthusiasm and helpful comments. Although I have been verbose, I try to concentrate all my thoughts into as few words as I can, but just want to clarify as best as I can, unlike those 5+ pages of effusive magazine reviews which include musings on the neighborhood, girlfriend, etc. They degenerate into comic books instead of taking a real stand, telling it like it is the way we do.
|
minorl,
I think we agree about priorities, although every effort makes a difference. First, optimized speaker placement. Sure, the Neo is more open with greater breathing room behind it. But I think that WC had used the ML Montis, 13A, 15A and CLX at the 1-2 foot distance, although in those days he might not have said so, and I don't remember his earliest pages. So he tried the Neo at this usual position. They were lacking with that tight position. So I think he found that the HF were less prominent in the Neo than from the other ML stats he tried. Then the treble boost in the Dag amazed him by the improvement. All those stats benefit from greater breathing room, although he may never have tried the other stats that way.
EQ won't cure everything. It won't make a sterile SS amp sound like a warm tube amp. But it can tailor the tonal balance to your liking, whether you are hearing deficient, or if you have trouble deciding between 2 amps where there is a mixed bag of good and bad things about each. Different EQ settings helped me appreciate the overall advantages of the Mytek compared to my Bryston. Honestly, many excellent amps are converging to have fairly close sound quality, but EQ carefully done can make a big difference. Maybe the Merrill Element amps will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I still anticipate using EQ, probably at different settings. And no speaker sounds quite like live music, so EQ can help you get closer to what you want.
|
bigddesign3,
Thanks for your comments about EQ in car audio systems. It seems like you found digital EQ to be a problem in the bass. What about your experience for EQ in HF? My ordianry stock car radios have benefitted enormously from simple treble boost, to get the dull sound to have much more life. But this leads to a more general discussion of analog vs digital electronics of which EQ is a part. I don't know why digital would have a problem in the bass, where LF presents much less a computational problem. CD's in the early 80's showed obvious digititis, raucous sounds mainly in HF By the 90's, converters were much better, so CD's became enjoyable. If today's digital is so great, why isn't the SOTA just using digital for preamps, power amps. Class D amps are not digital. I haven't heard about any audiophile electronics in the digital domain, so we are still living in an analog world. We could keep the chain pure digital, up to the power amp output which would require merely a DAC to then drive the speaker. 24 or more bits could provide nough resolution at very low volume levels. Why not?
Can anyone help answer these questions, particularly technical people like bill_k, minorl, ron17?
|
ron17, Thanks for your info on digital EQ. This requires further study, but at the moment with my non computer based old fashioned CD, DAC, EQ, amp system, I don't see how the Roon can be utilized. I am certainly interested in digital EQ. I met with Bill Parish at his home a few years ago when I was considering the Mola Mola Kaluga amps. He didn't know of a digital EQ for my purposes back then. Bill is a wonderful guy with great knowledge. The Mola Mola Kaluga is a great amp with my neutral tonal preference, so it is still under consideration. I agree that for EQ, attenuation is useful, although my overall use of EQ goes far beyond what many people are doing with room correction for limited freq in the lower freq. For example, I was able to make my Mytek amp sound more neutral (less sweet) by attenuating 200-600 Hz a little. I use my ears to suit my preferences, and would not care what microphones measured as some kind of "ideal" to be imposed on the system. Such software systems might create improvements in some ways, and I am not claiming that my adjustments are the theoretical correct way, they are just what I want to achieve musically to my standards/preferences. I am still interested in digital EQ to tailor the tonal balance to my needs, but the end result is still obtained by listening. Perhaps electronics involved in the digital process is superior to my Rane with its analog electronics, so I have an open mind. Unlike others, I like to boost HF above 10 Khz significantly to offer much more brilliance in recordings that are laid back (which is most of them), which has the effect of extending down to the midrange to a lesser degree. The midrange is affected in a reasonably subtle manner, always consistent with musicality, not a hifi disco type of distortion. I also realize that rock/pop/jazz recordings in general are hotter than classical recordings, which is why many people here who like rock, etc. are puzzled why I am really out on the fringe by boosting the HF the way I do. Many classical listeners sit far back in the concert hall and prefer the sound they are used to, which is laid back sound. But listeners to jazz are usually closer, and the music is more upfront and exciting, so they find EQ is not needed. For jazz, the mike is often right at the bell of the saxophone, much closer than for brass instruments in classical pieces. I am just one of those unusual classical listeners who listens at close distances in an attempt to get the close perspective of the performer when I am wearing my other hat. Also, do any of your acquaintances have digital preamps/amps that are truly superior to analog? Can you name the equipment that they have? If so, this is another reason not to spend too much money on today's dinosaur electronics. Progress often happens faster than most of us can stay solvent. (RIAA will recognize my paraphrase of an investment strategy to take reasonable losses in order to survive in the game.) |
WC,
Class D amps are already SOTA. The $16,500 retail for the Mola Mola Kaluga is a reasonable price for the SOTA quality. I almost bought them from Bill Parish, who said they sound more accurate than the much more pricey Soulution 700 series amps. We'll see if the class D ambitious offerings from Rowland and Merrill are worth the higher prices. Just note that they are all class D. And my Mytek is class D. At $2000, it beats most amps costing much more. It may have more sparkle than your Plinius, and be more neutral (less warm) in tonal flavor, while still having elegant, smooth HF. It is remarkable how you find the Plinius very powerful even at its modest power rating. You might be even more pleasantly surprised at the Mytek.
|
maplegrovemusic,
I recall you saying that you use Exogal amps for your KingSound stats. Which model, and what are the sound characteristics? Lyngdorf makes digital amps, as well as room correction software? And you are correct that class D is not a digital amp. To avoid confusion, they should call it class X or something.
bigddesign3,
I had a Nuforce ref 9 SE years ago and loved the fast, incisive complete tonal range. Although the midrange was sometimes cold and sterile, I listened through it because of the exciting clarity. At other times it was warm. Crazy. But one day the Nuforce burned up a transformer in one of my stat speakers. Luckily, I had spare transformers from several samples of the same beloved Audiostatic I collected. I dumped the Nuforce because no matter how great the sound was, it was not worth literally killing the speaker. Despite the Ref status, it was made cheaply.
|
For starkly comic relief, I will state that I prefer plain no. 18 zip cord for speaker wire. Yes, I know that larger cable (lower gauge) should transmit more power, etc. But my listening tests over several decades have shown that lower gauge speaker cables give the sound more bass and psychoacoustically "subtract" HF due to the more prominent LF. It is a tonal balance effect, with my thin zip cord creating more brilliance. The bass is still there, but tight even if not as full. In short, bigger speaker wire creates big veils and obese sound. Then we have the filter designs like MIT and Transparent Audio, which I have found to create veiling. If you like that type of sound, OK. WC has found that the copper/silver of the WW Silver 8 has more HF than the pure silver Platinum. This seems paradoxical, because silver is the best electrical conductor. Maybe the Platinum is thicker, so that changes the tonal balance more to the lower freq, and the HF are less apparent. All this shows that the crazy theories of cable design are a lot of hot air in comparison to just doing listening and figuring out what kind of sound you want.
WC, try just using no. 18 or 16 zip cord, either single wire or biwire. You will find the Neo to have more HF. Although the bass will probably be less in quantity, it will probably be tighter. And your Dag sound character will move in the direction of the Plinius--more sparkle and clarity. You will be shocked at these findings. Spend a few pennies for zip cord, for the best bang for your penny! |
Mrdecibel, Do you use 12 gauge zip cord or another type of speaker wire? I never tried 12 gauge zip. Maybe it doesn’t exist. I do remember Monster Cable in the old days, to be merely fat zip cord, but can’t remember if I tried it. But thanks to klh007 for mentioning Mapleshade. My zip cord is only 4-6 feet long. His description is close to my observations with thin zip. 16 is close to 18 in sound. Even 16 is much thinner than most audiophile speaker wire, which cater to typical audiophile tastes. I should have said to WC, thin zip cord will give the most PING FOR THE PENNY. Ha Ha. |
klh007,
I just read the Mapleshade link, thanks. I am glad the author hears what I do, and also has more technical background than me to make products that deliver the maximum information. Which model have you used? Did you compare to high gauge zip cord? I just have 1 difference of opinion with him. Obviously I have not heard his line of wires, but as with many writers, I think they are on the wrong track by saying that treble needs to be tamed. Some people openly admit that they like laid back sound, but anyone with close up live experience would hear the ridiculous amount of veiling and rolloff in most systems compared to close live music. Any attempt to roll off HF will certainly result in "prettier" sound, but some information is subtracted even if you like the laid back sound and want to justify how it is just as detailed merely because you are love smitten. So there is a little paradox with his presentation. On the one hand, he rightly criticizes the fat veiled sound of most audiophile speaker wires, but then on the other hand he wants to tame the treble with the PLUS feature. My personal preference would be to try the Double Helix plain 8 feet pair at $365, although I am eager to hear about your findings.
|
WC,
Although I agree that the Neo deserves the best, I believe that the Dag 400 is a backward move. It might be better than the power amp section of the Dag integrated, but not to the extent that the Plinius is. The Dag 400 will have more power obviously, but it will probably have similar house sound as the integrated, whereas the Plinius really impressed you with its sparkle and clarity. I doubt that the Dag 400 will have that sparkle. I understand your desire for more power, so I recommend the newest Emotiva DR reference at 550W into 8, 800 into 4. It doesn't double into half the load the way Dag does, but it will have more power than the Plinius. I heard the XPA 2 gen 3 for a 30 day trial, and it was powerful, accurate and even a little sweet. It rates 300W into 8, 550 into 4, 800 into 2 (although recently they have not revealed the 2 ohm figures). My guess is that either Emotiva would be even more sparkly than the Plinius, as many listeners have still described the Plinius as warm. Grey9hound described Emotiva XPA gen 2 as bright when pushed, although thezaks said that the gen 3 is different from the gen 2. But since your Neo is somewhat rolled off in HF compared to the 15A and certainly compared to your Magico, I believe you will really like the Neo/Emotiva, and still find the Neo/Dag 400 somewhat rolled off. Emotiva DR retails for $1600, XPA 2 gen 3 for $1000 with that no-risk 30 day trial from the company. After you buy and sell the Dag 400 you will take a loss greater than that. Since your money is limited, I can see you selling the Dag integrated to get the 400. But then you would be losing the valuable tone control of the integrated. I can see the Dag integrated with the +4 treble boost being more sparkly than the ARC Ref 10 with the Dag 400, and the Ref 10 plus Plinius beats even the Dag integrated. I can see the Ref 10 plus either Emotiva beating anything you will try, for sparkle and most other qualities. Why don't you at least hold off on the Dag 400 until you try the Block which is coming very soon. I will hold back my comments on the Block until you listen to it.
RIAA, I agree that the Mac preamp is probably the weak link for techno_dude, although the Lux preamp with its tone controls coupled to the M900u is likely dynamite in most ways. If techno's finances are tight, then I would get the Rane EQ to plug into the Lux M900u. There will be 6 dB gain in the balanced outputs of the Rane, probably enough gain as strictly a line stage, and a much more flexible EQ than the Lux preamp tone controls. If EQ is not used, then the Luminous passive preamp is the way to go for highest transparency, but there is no gain with the Luminous and techno appreciates the benefit of EQ, so I think the Rane ME 60 is the best option for him.
|
