shannere,
I agree. I have my preferences for maximizing enjoyment of my music, and this certainly applies to others. I love upfront clarity and excitement. Two popular audiophile recordings are Jazz at the Pawnshop, and Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances with the Dallas Symphony conducted by Donald Johanos. Jazz was made at a small club in Stockholm which I visited. The atmosphere is cozy and intimate with a small stage. All the instruments are brilliantly clear and upfront. I can't imagine anyone going to a jazz club that isn't excited about that style of sound. The Rachmaninoff recording was made in a small auditorium with a shallow stage and close simple miking. The back row of brass instruments is direct sound that is just as thrillingly exciting as the front solo violin. Minimal depth of field, but everything presented with great clarity. I learned the piece through this recording. Subsequently, I heard other recordings made with more emphasis on auditorium sound with a laid back perspective. The reverberance detracts from the clarity, and the overall effect is boring and murky by comparison.
Also, I look for recordings of all types of music that are upfront. As long as the sound is exciting, I can expand my appreciation of all types of music. As you say, it is all about appreciation of the music. Every artist works hard to express his/her craft, and I feel that trying to obtain maximum clarity enables me to appreciate the most content on that recording, which helps my admiration and respect for the artist. There are flaws in the performances even with editing and such, but I forgive the flaws in return for more perception and appreciation of the wonderful artistry. |
WC,
I am eagerly awaiting your A/B of the Rowland 925 and Block. Sorry to keep repeating, but Guido says that the Rowland 535 is very nearly as good as the 925 overall, and in the HF the 535 is slightly more revealing. A stereo 535 has similar specified power specs as the Block, except that not being class A it doesn’t gobble up the electrical power. I hope Dave's 925 is broken in. By the way, when you had the 925 before, what differences in sound did you notice from day 1 to as long as you had them? Was your day 1 already broken in?
|
WC,
While we are awaiting your most interesting A/B of the Rowland and Block, maybe you could give your promised comparison of the treble of the Plinius to the Block. We know you like the Block better in most ways, but you have been a little silent on the treble. If the Plinius' treble is more extended, then an interesting comparison would be the treble of the Plinius vs the Rowland.
|
WC,
I understand what you mean--the Block is so transparent that you have difficulty isolating the treble, etc. This is similar to a description of love for another person. You don't want to analyze your feelings, you just submit to them. However, it is true that the midrange is by far the most important region of the freq spectrum that we respond to, and the Block may have the best midrange. I still believe that the original Quad 57 electrostatic had the best midrange of any speaker, even if other aspects were flawed. But I want it all, so let's see if the Titan, Rowland give it all--overall transparency plus the sparkle of the Plinius. I get the feeling that the Block doesn't have quite the sparkle, but you love its other qualities so the sparkle may not matter as much to you at this point.
|
Guido--interesting thoughts. I met Benjamin Zander at a preconcert lecture, found him inspiring, and thanked him for helping to make me a better person and doctor. I still find that at first I may have emotional wonder at the beauty of a performance. Later, I listen to the record again and again, and discover the details of how I came to react emotionally--subtle characteristics of tone, rhythm, dynamics, tempo, etc. Sometimes we listen in a relaxed way for the overall emotion, and other times we listen analytically. Both ways are useful for enjoyment of great music.
|
4425,
I recall you being happy with the Luxman M900u, maybe also the C900u, finding them detailed. How does the Dag Progression integrated compare in sound? Probably very similar? WC found the Dag Momentum combo more detailed than the Progression, which all makes sense.
|
shannere,
You are correct that sweetness is correlated with a different set of harmonics. If you deliberately EQ a sound to have quantitatively more HF, that will cause it to sound less sweet. The reverse is also true--EQ it to reduce HF, and the sound becomes more sweet. All fine amps have flat extended freq response, and we don't know all the theoretical circuit design factors that explain psychoacoustically why we may perceive one amp to have more HF than another. By the way, many fine old Italian violins are sweet and mellowed out with loss of HF. By contrast, a typical modern violin is harsher with more HF, but the HF are full of unnatural distortions which are not true harmonics (integer multiples of the fundamental). The scratching of the bow on the string has very high freq components beyond human hearing, and even the scratching sounds in the 10-20Khz range are part of the total sound of the instrument, but they contribute to the less sweet aspect of the sound. If the bow has too much sticky rosin, the sound is scratchy and less sweet, but if the rosin is used up, the tone is too smooth with loss of HF--it is pleasant and relatively sweet, but the listener finds that the projection (loudness) is lessened, largely due to relative loss of HF.
|
WC,
I am trying to understand how you describe sound characteristics of a component. For the esoteric k1, you said it is more transparent and less forgiving than the Luxman, then you said it was less detailed with the tv signal. I think you mean that the esoteric is less pleasing. Usually a component that is transparent is also more detailed, but with inferior sources that detail is less pleasing. Also, "more sparkle and sweetness" is confusing. Usually, sparkle is associated with more HF at the cost of some sweetness, and sweetness usually involves loss of some HF as with many tube amps. In your first paragraph, saying the Luxman's sweetness which enables you to listen to it for hours, is similar to your description of amps with some roll off of HF. So I am guessing that you mean that the Luxman is sweeter, less detailed with less HF sparkle, more tolerant of inferior sources.
|
WC,
Yes, I agree with your description of sweetness. A little sweetness is equivalent to reasonably transparent, so therefore enjoyable and engaging. Too much sweetness means a major lack of transparency, and dullness. So the Luxman has a little sweetness, a Goldilocks "sweet spot" (note the pun) for detail, transparency and nice tone. |
tjassoc, I agree. Great post.
|
thezaks,
You are right in theory about a certain lack of objectivity due to the sounds of different violins. However, the variability in the sounds of violins is less than the variability of the sound of amps, and of course, speakers. Most violinists will perform on different violins with the same optimum amount of rosin to get the right tone for each instrument. There have been demonstrations of the sound of different violins played by the same violinist. Educated listeners from a distance had trouble reliably discerning which violin was being played. One particular concert where I was sitting 30 feet away, I was fooled into thinking a certain modern instrument sounded like a 250 year old famous Italian one. But when I visited the maker of this modern violin and played his violins, it was much easier to tell the differences between his similar violins (yes, there is a house sound of a particular maker, although individual violins are subtly different) and my 1890 violin or other older ones. This is why I have said that individual details of a performance are much more obvious when sitting close. But even under my ear, there is a big universe of differences between all of these violins and any complete audio system. One famous recording was done in the 1960's by the great violinist Ruggiero Ricci, called THE GLORY OF CREMONA. He played a dozen old famous violins in different pieces, which is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison, but he also played the very short introduction to the Max Bruch Violin Concerto No. 1, on different violins. The differences can be heard, but they are relatively subtle compared to if you played a single cut on different amps and of course different speakers. For example, the very mellow Gaspar da Salo violin played through a Boulder amp would sound more sterile than a more brilliant Strad violin played through a Conrad Johnson tube amp.
|
tjassoc,
If you like, I can bring my violin and play for you at your home. You might have recordings of solo violin pieces, or I can play the violin part of some concerto recordings you know. We'll have fun. I am in NJ on Sun, so if you email me with your details, we can get together. russlaudATgmail.
|
WC,
I don't think a more transparent component would make your favorite song sound quite as bad as "horrible"--it would reveal the flaws of the recording and even the singer, but it would also reveal more of the goodness that you like. Add it all up, and you get at worst a mixed bag of pluses and minuses, and at best a greater appreciation of the goodness while forgiving the more obvious negative aspects. This is like appreciating an honest friend who tells you the truth, as long as he doesn't insult you.
|
WC,
I suggest doing what bigddesign3 suggests--try the direct connection, bypassing the ref 10. Hopefully you have enough gain. My guess is you will enjoy the increased detail which comes from bypassing a line stage. The reputed luxuriant smooth sound of the Lampizator should give you enough of that quality. In any case, you can report on the system with and without the ref 10.
|
WC,
I totally agree about the negative qualities of overtreated, dead rooms. At a famous NY dealer, I heard a Wilson system in a moderate sized dead room. Trying to A/B amps in that room, one amp produced a sound like thick mud and the other amp sounded like a little less thick mud. But in his larger room with less carpet, a different Wilson system sounded respectable, enough to more easily hear the differences between the amps. This dealer had spent millions of $ on remodeling, but that carpeted dead room was a complete waste.
|
There is an art to deciding the ideal ratio of carpet to bare floor to have. I enjoy playing my violin in a room with no carpet but a good amount of furniture. A totally empty room with no carpet or furniture sounds too reverberant which actually darkens the sound because of the HF smearing from too many reflections. A high ceiling always helps. All size pianos sound muddy unless the ceiling is high.
|
4425,
Thanks, very informative. I guess the compactness of the Dag Progression Integrated is the major factor in your decision to get it. Despite my tube-like and whipped cream comments, they are only relative to comparisons to other equipment. I did have the Luxman 600A Class A amp for a month on loan and can say it was quite neutral and nice.
The midrange is the most important of any component because it is where most of the melodic content lies. Since you like voices, which are mostly midrange, it makes sense that you value the midrange quality of the Dag. But to fully appreciate the total sound of the voice and other instruments it is necessary to have full HF extension and detail to capture the overtones of the midrange. In real life, the voice and other instruments may sound a little raw and unpleasant if they are too loud, or you sit very close in an unamplified setting. Things like Dag sweeten these sounds, but the Luxman is more true to life. |
WC,
Your 10 favorable observations on the Lampi could still be explained by omission of the ref 10 in the chain. Many people note that all electronics impose veiling and loss of information, so there is a big advantage in eliminating any stage you can, provided you have enough gain. Also, as almarg said, the impedance mismatch between the output of the ref 10 and the input of the Block could be handicapping the overall performance. A good rule is that the input impedance of the amp should be greater than 10x the output impedance of the preamp, otherwise HF will be rolled off. I still believe that for your overall system synergy, the ARC ref 6 would give you better snap/sparkle than the ref 10, while still giving enough tube "magic." You never heard the ref 6 with the Neo, and you probably will appreciate it now.
|
4425,
Since you and I have lots of experience, I agree that it is best to draw conclusions after living with a component for a sufficient period of time. However, usually my first impressions are approximately correct, which are confirmed later. If the differences are very subtle, it takes much longer to draw the right conclusions.
|
WC,
The Lampi as you described presents more detail, clarity, although as I mentioned it is hard to tell whether this is due to elimination of the ref 10 in the chain or whether the Lampi dac is more detailed than the Lux dac. Put in the ref 10 with both the Lampi and Lux to draw the proper conclusions.
Beyond this test, it is obvious that an accurate, detailed component will have the accurate soundstage of the recording. The inflated soundstage of the ref 10 is euphonic distortion similar to that of many tube stages. You like it, but it is not accurate. Here is a great example of what 4425 said--live with the Lampi bypassing the ref 10, to get yourself to increasingly appreciate Lampi's more accurate qualities. Don't sell the Lampi for a long time. A good test would be utilizing the more accurate ref 6 (compared to the ref 10) with the Lux, to compare with the Lampi without ref 6. This would allow you to evaluate the tube electronics of the Lampi which seems more detailed than the tube electronics of the ref 10, but might be stiff competition with the tube electronics of the ref 6.
|
almarg,
My experience is that unbalanced cables don’t sound much different from balanced cables of the same design, all other factors being equal. I would take the manual’s opinion of "best sound performance" as just another opinion. I think you are absolutely correct about the supreme importance of impedance compatibility. If balanced cables offer a better impedance compatibility, that is the main factor in getting better sound without HF rolloff. My experience with cartridge loading is relevant here. Loading a moving coil cartridge into the highest impedance, say 47 K Ohms produces the most extended HF and detail, although euphonically oriented people have said there is HF peakiness and overshoot with high loading. They like loading at low 100 ohms or so, which produces more mellow sound. Many phono stages offer lots of loading choices for flavoring the sound to one’s preferences, but I would take preamps with only 47 K ohm loading for maximum detail, preferring that the designer spend the money on better circuit design rather than loading choices.
|
I don't think techno_dude has any ulterior motives--he just has very clear-cut opinions and advice. He knows that WC won't sell anything at other than fair market prices.
|
WC,
Sorry, I may have misinterpreted your evaluations. OK, the Lampi as a preamp doesn't kill the ref 10, but the Lampi is just a little better in the detail department. Since the ref 6 is more accurate and detailed than the ref 10, despite what techno_dude mentioned about the crummy volume control pot of the ref 6, I am guessing that the ref 6 + Lux DAC or ref 6 + Lampi would be real competition for the Lampi preamp + DAC. There are very accurate tube stages and there are euphonic tube stages. The Lampi and ref 6 are in the accurate camp, the ref 10 is in the euphonic camp. These are relatively small differences compared to a Boulder SS vs a syrupy old school Conrad Johnson tube amp. See if you can get the ref 6 again to do these trials. At that point, you might be ready to let go of the ref 10 and keep the ref 6 for your preamp needs for multiple source inputs such as radio, turntable (gasp!). I know you are not interested in turntables at this time, but my experience has shown MUCH MORE variety/variability in sound character among cartridges, tables, tonearms than with several DAC's I have tried, although I don't have any experience with any expensive DAC's. Koetsu cartridges are lush, Lyra are fast/detailed, etc.
|
4425,
Interesting that you consider the Wilson perhaps less detailed, and warmer than the Magico, which is why you would pair the Dag with Magico and Luxman with Wilson. That correlates with why WC is leaning toward accuracy in amps and cables with the Wilson. With the Magico, he wanted to warm it up.
|
pokey77,
I second Guido's recommendation of Igor Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. This is a fairly abstract piece of music, very complex. The most popular Stravinsky work is the Firebird, a more melodic piece. It also has a wide range of sounds and dynamic levels. I also recommend the Shostakovich 5th Symphony, particularly the last movement, Finale. Written in 1944, it represents the triumph of his spirit after persecution by the Russian authorities. This Finale starts with banging drums, with great climaxes at the end. A real crowd pleaser. The 1959 recording by Leonard Bernstein is all-out passion, my favorite. |
WC,
Please don't give up the Plinius. It is a cheap reference. Even though overall you like the Block better, the Plinius is still the best amp you presently have for snap and sparkle. If you need cash, I would sell the ref 10 and get the ref 6 for all the reasons I have given. Aside from soundstage, the ref 10 is inferior to the ref 6 for the core qualities of any music. My prediction is that the big Pass will have balls and such, but it will still have the typical Pass house sound. Big money and sacrifices for euphonics, just to satisfy your curiosity? It is better to borrow it, pay a little rent money for a very short period of time if necessary, to cover the services of a few men needed to install this beast and then cart it away after your brief trial.
|
WC,
Be careful about being wowed by soundstage dimensions. Euphonic components have inflated soundstages and bloated images that go along with that. This is not accuracy. Tell us about the core qualities of the music, which are tone, LF and HF extension, detail and information retrieval at all freq, rhythmic snap with transient response. I suspect that the Block has more detail, which correlates with a truer soundstage than the Titan. I'm sure your further listening will evaluate these other aspects rather than singling out the soundstage.
|
WC,
OK, you've told us about the Titan's soundstage and bass. Now, how about the spark and snap that you value (sorry, grey9hound, WC likes snap, sparkle and life as I do, even if you don't), detail and clarity at other freq? My guess is that you still don't have anything that beats the Plinius for snap/sparkle.
|
WC,
The dealer of Range Rover or Pass xs300 who thinks that the big money customer understands the product is totally wrong. You didn't like the Pass .8 series compared to the .5 series when the prevailing sales pitch said that the later design of the .8 makes it better. So how can anyone possibly predict how the xs300 is going to sound or whether he likes it without a home trial? At the high price, how can anyone be comfortable about a purchase without a home trial? The odds are high that there is no Pass that offers better sound in most criteria than the Titan, Dag Progression monos, or even the Plinius. At their prices, any of those offer better value than a big Pass. Even the expensive Block offers better sound than any Pass you have heard, plus better value. |
I like the coaxial design of the Fyne Audio speakers. The titanium tweeter promises to be outstanding, used down to 750 Hz in the F1-12 and F1-10 models. Titanium is rigid with low mass, a great combination for a driver. The F1-10 might have greater clarity than the F1-12 below 750 Hz, due to its smaller 10" driver vs the 12" driver in the F1-12. What are the MSRP's of each?
Don't ignore the Tekton MOAB for $4500, which uses the low mass tweeter array down to 300 Hz. The materials might not be of the quality of the Fyne, but using low mass drivers down to as low freq as possible is desirable for clarity. Ricevs raves about MOAB.
|
fastfreight,
I can't answer your question exactly, but I recently had the Classe D200 class D at home for 2 months. It was nicely detailed and to the warm side of neutral with good detail and space. Compared to my unusual Bryston 2.5B SST2, it was too warm for me, with rolled off HF. But the Classe was superior to the Bryston 4B SST2 for these qualities. Other Brystons were inferior to this Classe in neutrality and freq extension. I think Classe is an excellent company. When I spoke to them a year ago, they were working on new designs, so I would hold off on PS Audio stuff until you see what develops with Classe.
|
jafox and WC,
You can make a judgment about the sonic character of preamps by using any decent source, such as phono system, or even a plain CD player playing good recordings. A great sounding recording played on a modest phono or cheap CD system will sound better than an average sounding recording on the most expensive, prestigious equipment. Doing so will also make it easier to do A/B testing of preamps. It is not necessary to have a DAC, whether cheap or expensive, to do these tests. Also, it is true that I have not personally heard most of the equipment discussed here at home. But accepting WC's honest and accurate descriptions of sound characteristics, and my own experience with many past models, I can comment. He seems to value big soundstages and high volume dynamics, especially in the bass over everything else. Using this value system, the Titan and ref 10 are tops, but I am still waiting to hear about how the Titan rates for the core qualities of music, which are tone, LF/HF extension, clarity, coherence, detail, rhythm, transient snap at all freq and all volume levels from loud to very soft. For these core qualities, ref 6 is clearly superior to ref 10, according to WC's honest descriptions. I suspect the same is true about the superiority of the Block over the Titan, although we will wait until WC addresses these core qualities of the Titan. Let's see what his buddies find--WC, ask them to do a checklist for all the core qualities I have mentioned.
Also, as indicated by jonaiken, unbiased home listening tests show the superiority of the ARC 250SE over the 160M's, despite the sales pitch by marketing man Dave Gordon to the contrary. Yes, "newer is not necessarily better," and I'll add that more expensive is not necessarily better.
|
While we are eagerly awaiting the Sat night EVENT, I'll tell how I was introduced to the Emotiva. My long time friend and patient had several big Soundlab electrostatics driven by the top Pass amps of the day. Then he got advanced stage 4 lung cancer, which was unusual not being a smoker. I thought he was going to die soon, but he went to a top NY hospital where he got specific targeted treatment for the genetic mutation that caused his cancer. Fortunately, his other audiophile friend is the CEO of that hospital, so he got the best care. He is still living 6 years after that diagnosis, which is almost unheard of. But the drugs for this genetic mutation cost $100,000 per year. Even with his friend's help, he is financially strapped, so he had to sell his Soundlabs and Pass gear. So he went on a quest to find great cheap amps and came up with the Emotiva. He found the Emotiva to be more accurate than his Pass, although the Pass was sweeter. I was the only one of his audio friends to pick up on this, as all his other audio club members are stubborn and euphonically oriented. My friend, who has seen the relative importance of many things in his life, knows the value of money to be spent on vital things, yet still knows that the Emotiva is one of the finest amps out there and is living well to enjoy his music.
|
gtaphile, What specific sonic characteristics did you hear that made the ref 5SE "better" than the Luxman C900? Same question for how the ref 40th anniversary was "better" than the ref 5SE. As you say, values are subjective and an individual matter, so unless the reader knows what your values are, it is impossible to know what you mean by "better." Even if you don't mention your values, if you avoid using the term, "better" which is meaningless, but you factually describe what you hear, that is more useful. For example, if you describe something as being less strident in HF and fuller in the bass, that is useful information for someone who wants that type of sound, and also useful for someone who wants a more analytic sound who can then look elsewhere. |
WC, I support your praise of an amp that "stomps" on much more expensive amps. You have described the qualities of the Plinius in enough aspects to support this. But we still don’t know if the Titan stomps on other amps for characteristics other than soundstage and bass dynamics. You can remain silent on this until your buddies do their listening, so you don’t bias them. Then you can do a second shootout between the winner and the Plinius. If the Titan is the winner in most of the core aspects of music, then the shootout between the two relatively cheap amps--Titan and Plinius--would be useful. I am guessing the Titan will be preferred for some aspects and the Plinius for others. Make sure volume levels are matched for all A/B tests, so your Sat EVENT will be most fruitful. If you do the second shootout, you will all be up into Sun AM, or whenever you terminate the contest due to tired ears. This beats all the audio show reporting and the New Year countdown! Maybe I am a game show host wannabee. |
jafox,
Agree with much of your above 2 posts, especially the 8:13. Of course, when I said, a "decent" source, I meant that it has no limitations in freq response, dynamics, etc. Otherwise, it would be the weak link and everything would sound mediocre using the relatively poor source. Conversely, a great, clean recording through the car radio sounds better than a murky recording through a good system.
In 8:13, you make 2 very important points. First, I've not heard the Dominus, but components I know with midrange preference because of comparative HF rolloff show loss of resolution in the midrange and HF. This is because HF contain harmonics of the midrange fundamental, so any HF rolloff will subtract these harmonics which are part of the tone of the instrument or voice, therefore less total information revealed, such as the precision of the percussionist. Second and even more important, because of greater resolution, you get the total content of the music at a lower volume level than needed with a less resolving component. If you need to turn the volume up to loud unnatural levels to get more out of the music, that tells you that the component is not as revealing. This is another form of distortion because louder than natural is not true to life (this is an axiomatic truth). You expressed this very well--grey9hound, take note.
|
WC,
Thanks for spilling some of the beans about the great resolution of the Titan. How are the highs? Well, I guess you will have to do a single blinded test with your buddies, since only you will know which amp is being played, unless your wife does the switching so that you can be blinded also. I should further clarify what I mean by a great soundstage from an accurate amp. Say the recording stage is 50 feet deep and there are 10 rows of musicians from front to back. The accurate amp will reveal the exact 10 layers of depth which is 50 feet. If an amp makes it sound like 300 feet depth, that is not accurate or true to life, and each of the 10 layers will sound fuzzy and bloated. (This is like magnifying any picture--it is blurry, so you enjoy the picture more at its smaller size. I know you like big screens for movies, but that works only if the resolution is greater for the bigger screen.) You might even hear only 5 layers, with several layers being amorphously gelled together. Big depth of field, but what good is that if everything is fuzzy? So hopefully the Titan's great resolution is letting you hear more layers each of which are precisely focused with great clarity, not blurred and magnified.
,
|
grey9hound,
Agreed. But live classical music and a lot of jazz (I don't know about rock) has levels of 20-100 dB, mostly 30-90. With electronics with enough HF, those very soft sounds will have enough resolution, and as jafox said, the music can be more satisfying at lower volumes than are needed if electronics are less resolved, which is accompanied by HF rolloff. Other people describe the "pop" of an amp, which is another way of referring to more HF transients. In your case, you have said that you like to crank your music loud, probably louder than I would listen to. This is because your electronics are rolled off in HF, compared to mine. I are saying that if your electronics had more HF balance with more resolution, you could be satisfied with reasonably loud levels a few dB lower than you currently listen at. This is true of even some tube electronics, as I experienced with my Theta preamp when I got better spec tubes from Roger Modjeski. Resolution was improved over the wide band of freq, and HF were more extended.
|
Guidocorona makes the most important point that the line stage makes things softer, attenuates transients, reduces resolution, all of which means euphonic, which confirms my experience. It doesn't matter what the source is. I am glad to hear WC's honesty that he loves the ref10 and that it is "one hell of a euphonic experience." As almarg said, the benefit of the additional line stage is getting more gain which is needed for some recordings. The user is willing to accept some euphonics in return for the extra gain. A great line stage will have minimal euphonics so the benefits of the extra gain outweigh the minimal dose of euphonics. But with many recordings, the extra gain is not needed, and then you can hear the superiority of the passive stage with volume control, such as mrdecibel's Luminous or the Music First that I heard. This superiority is in the areas of purity, clarity, overall information retrieval without harshness.
|
grey9hound,
I don't remember the details of Modjeski's tubes I used many years ago. He found variability in tube production, so he matched tubes for consistency in certain parameters and had several grades. Any device, whether transistor, tube, resistor, cap is made with tolerances aka variability. The highest grade was the most expensive in accordance with the rarer consistency of the specs and tighter tolerances. I got his top grade, which greatly improved the clarity compared to the stock tubes in that Theta preamp. Microphonics is a good guess. The best SS manufacturers do the costly weeding out of unmatched transistors, the analogous thing. This is a major reason why I have found a few low power amps to have greater clarity than their high power siblings, because high power amps need more transistors which means more opportunity for additive distortion.
|
WC,
Thanks for sharing. I think the ref 6 will give you the volume you need, plus a little of the euphonics that you like, with either the Lampi or Lux DAC. It will give more precision than the ref 10, according to your descriptions, and still give pleasure to bad recordings. Ref 6 should be closer than ref 10 to the Goldilocks happy medium between the extremes of ruthlessness and muddy euphonics. The Neo is warmer than the Magico you liked, so you can benefit from swinging a little more to the ruthless extreme than you would for the Magico, for the goal of getting more clarity from many recordings. Despite my preference for the ruthless type of sound, I don't think of it as ruthless. Rather, I can take any recording, get the most clarity from it and then forgive the occasional flawed moments. For example, I have an early digital 1987 recording of a popular piece which is crystal clear/exciting, but there are a few spurts of harsh digititis. I prefer this recording to other smooth analog recordings of this piece which put me to sleep from the sonic point of view. |
lemonhaze,
Absolutely true about everything you said about horns. I got the audio bug after hearing my father's mono custom large corner cabinet using the Altec 15" woofer and Altec 511 sectorial horn which covered 500-22Khz. Very smooth, natural and authoritative sound. But when I got electrostatics I heard the horn coloration, which was much less than an 811 horn I heard later which covered 800 Hz on up. It seems like the Neo gives the best combination of authoritative dynamics with a powerful amp, plus lack of coloration in middle and HF. The Neo's dynamics are not as much as a good horn, but they are plenty enough so that the most important feature of clarity means that the total Neo package is preferable to a horn.
|
dguitarnut,
Years ago I heard the Avantgarde Trio is a small room at a show. I sat very close, so you might think that the Trio would sound congested in that telephone booth of a room with so many people listening behind me. But no, the beauty and naturalness of the sound was in abundance, the HF were great, and there were no horn colorations. All this from a low powered tube amp. Then I heard the Duo at a home, but the HF were rolled off. Careful setup may be more critical for lower freq than HF, but I was shocked at the difference between the Trio and Duo. Obviously, the room and so many things could have differed in the setups. Grey9hound would say that you should get the best AG speaker you can afford, and use Lyngdorf room correction for compatibility with your room. Horns have more resolution than unloaded dynamic drivers, so the Trio is best because all the drivers are horn loaded. You don't need those humongous bass horns for your small room. The AG Trio I heard was before the humongous bass horns came out. |
WC,
Good. Reviews say that the Titan is somewhat euphonic but otherwise excellent. Your findings show that the Block is superior in every way, as I had suspected. I wouldn't waste money on the big Pass if you have to sacrifice the excellent cheap amps like the Titan and Plinius. They are all keepers, and the Plinius may still be the champ for HF snap/sparkle. The Plinius is also likely to beat the Pass xs300 except for powerful dynamics. Pass is passe (pronounced "pass-ay")--gone in your life. The next meaningful shootout should be between either the Rowland 925 or 535, and the Block. Selling the Momentum, Gryphon and Sonus Faber would give you the money for the 925. Better yet, get the cheap 535 which Guido raves about, first as a $6K stereo for judging clarity at reasonably loud levels, then if you like the tonal qualities, getting 2 mono bridgeable 535 at $12K for full dynamics. This should give the 925, Block a run for their much more money.
|
WC,
You well expressed the superior clarity of the Lampi preamp stage vs the ref 10. But my experience with euphonic electronics is that soundstage is inflated with blurring of details, like taking a picture and magnifying it without increasing the resolution. The magnified picture gets blurred. You can only enjoy a larger picture more if the resolution is increased. If the Lampi gets "hot sounding", you are listening too loud. Accurate sound and accurate live volumes is the ultimate pleasure, but being able to push the volume to louder than natural just because rolled off HF let you, is just plain volume distortion, as well as the distortion from blurred details. It all comes down to accuracy and resolution. If you still crave a little euphonics, go for the ref 6 instead of ref 10.
|
WC,
As bigddesign3 said, the ARC ref 750SE is probably the most accurate and powerful ARC amp to try (I remember someone recently saying that, according to his home trial). If it is still euphonic compared to the Block, which seems likely, then tubes are dead for you. I'll bet even the Titan will beat the ARC in every way. Just get the ARC at a low price so you don't take a loss when you sell it. For preamps, the Block should be a contender. Don't forget the Lux C900, which has some sweetness without false tubey soundstage bloating, plus authentic detail plus tone controls that are so useful.
|
dguitarnut,
The best way is to get to know any recording of a particular piece, then listen to other versions for different interpretations and different sonic presentations. Guido and I are both knowledgable about classical music, but we may have different preferences for recordings. But we each have several recordings of particular favorite pieces, because each interpretation offers different views of the music, which leads to a greater understanding of each piece. For pop like Simon and Garfunkel, I prefer their 1981 Central Park performance of "April, come she will" better than their original 1965 one. In classical music, with great violinists, you can follow their different interpretations of the same piece throughout their life, from child prodigy at age 12 to maturity at age 80. Producers wanted to have artists re-make recordings as technology improved, from the acoustic recordings of 1910, to electrical 78 RPM in 1930, to 33RPM in 1945, stereo in 1954, digital in 1980.
|
Guido,
Thanks for your further info about the Rowland 535. For most listeners, a single 535 should have enough power. In your listening tests at soft to reasonably loud volumes, did the single 535 have more clarity/purity than bridged 535's? Also, the Rowland amps that use the Pascal module might be at a theoretical disadvantage than Merrill's use of custom made modules using higher bandwidth faster GaN devices. The Merrill Element thread is attracting attention, and one poster said that as GaN becomes more widely used, the prices of products should drop, so he won't spring for any class D until a pair of monos gets down to $5000. The Element 114 will be available late Spring, early Summer. For now, a single 535 is priced right, but I question spending double for the 2 monos if you say that the single has at least as good clarity as the monos. There is one possible disadvantage of bridged amps--they have higher distortion into low impedances than the same amp not bridged. |
grey9hound,
What is Element 115, who is Bob Lazar?
|
WC,
Speaking of ear fatigue, I don't enjoy any listening to either live music or my system even at moderate volumes for more than 1 hour. Live concerts last about 2 hours, with less than 1 hour in the 1st half, intermission about 15 min to take a break and talk to people, then the last pieces for less than 1 hour. This is an intelligent way to experience music, otherwise your sensations are dulled from prolonged bombardment. If I take breaks and come back to listen, the immediate impression is fresh stimulation with everything sounding better. This reminds me of when I go boating. The initial experience of getting off land is a great release, then I get saturated and 1 hour is enough. Wait some time, then go out again and you get the freshness again. So two 1 hour experiences is far preferable to a single 2 hour experience. You can think of parallels with lots of other pleasurable experiences, ha ha. |
