grey9hound,
You contradict yourself. Although "in your face" carries a negative connotation, it is factually true and you have admitted, that "in your face" is associated with more treble. So, "NOT in your face" means it has less treble, not "still have all of the treble" (your words). And WC accurately described how the front row sound is more detailed than the middle/back row sound, although the front row sound has negatively been taken to mean "in your face." You just still don't acknowledge that front row sound is more detailed than laid back sound, but WC knows it. Concertgoers who sit up front don't get ear fatigue. Only audiophiles who push the volume beyond natural levels get ear fatigue. I just happen to get less enjoyment after a certain time period, whether it is live music, or any audio system at any volume or whether it is upfront or laid back. Everyone has their individual time limits, after which the listener gets saturated. |
WC,
I agree that occasionally it is fun to listen for hours at a time. The best way to do this is to listen for 30 min, take a little break, then listen again, etc. Typical songs last for only a few minutes in order to deliver maximum impact. Maybe the best example I can think of that illustrates the disadvantage of prolonged stimulation is eating ice cream or chocolate. The first bites are the best, then you feel the addiction and compulsion coming on. You finish the pint or quart of ice cream, then feel the guilt that the last few spoons really weren't that good, then maybe you feel a little sick, then the next day you look fat and the scale makes you feel depressed. Too much audio in one session does that. Also, A/B tests should ideally be conducted by playing a very short selection, not a long piece, to better tell the differences because of the initial higher sensitivity. Several short A/B tests can be done in one session, but not for many hours because then you lose your ability to hear differences. |
biddesign3,
Yes, I meant concerts of acoustic, unamplified music. Also see my post to WC just above. Too bad you were pushed into the PA system by stoned people who could care less about sitting down and quietly listening to the music. That's why building a great system for your own private enjoyment is a worthy goal. Classical music concertgoers sit quietly and are respectful of others. They hold their coughs until the few seconds of breaks between sections of a piece. Latecomers are not permitted to enter the auditorium until the music has a break.
|
WC,
Live rock is usually very loud and a lot of the instruments are amplified. The amps and speakers in those live rock concerts are far inferior to those of all the posters on your thread, so no wonder your wife hated the sound, especially compared to what you have at home. So live rock is not what I refer to as live music which uses natural unmiked instruments and unamplified voices. Except for a very few unusual pieces, classical music is unamplified. Live jazz performances I have been to are more similar to classical concerts, which are at sane volume levels in a range of 30-90 dB with rare peaks of 100 dB. With live classical and much of jazz, you hear the sound of the instruments uncorrupted by mediocre electronics and speakers, so that is the reference point for anyone judging the qualities of the fine electronics discussed here.
|
WC,
Appreciation of classical music is best done by more exposure to it, like learning a foreign language by immersion. I could recommend a few pieces that are very exciting and would stimulate you. The first movement (section) of Beethoven's 5th Symphony, the last few minutes of the first movement of Tchaikovsky's 4th Symphony, the last movement of Alexander Glazounov's THE SEASONS in the outstanding recording of Ernest Ansermet conducting the Suisse Romande Orchestra. All the other recordings of the Glazounov are slower and boring by comparison. The Beethoven and Tchaikovsky have big sudden contrasts between soft and loud. The Tchaikovsky has big brass fanfares that will thrill you. The Glazounov recording is FAST, which is surprising from the Conductor who was in his 80's at the time in 1962. It's got loads of percussion and everything exciting. All these pieces are FAST, and I guarantee you will enjoy them.
|
bigddesign3, right. I'll add that those stoned people at the rock concert were more interested in the inner detail of the creature they were eyeing instead of the inner detail of the music, lol. |
WC, I absolutely applaud Al's recommendation of the Prokofiev Classical Symphony. You will enjoy it now, and your appreciation will grow when you get more experience with the classical style. The pieces I recommended are more flashy and dynamic, so I wanted to give you specific recos that would be least likely to put you to sleep. The most accessible example is the 1st movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Peter Schickele aka PDQ Bach gave a hilarious running commentary on the 1st movement in the 1960's as though it were a football game with all kinds of fumbles and turnarounds. You may know the quick theme, "da da da dum", which gets tossed around the orchestra like a football. It is repeated 100's of times in only a few minutes in various guises, loud and soft, bass to high pitched instruments in all the tonal colors. It is desirable to have a system with the highest resolution, so you can catch all the action with the utmost detail. It is easy to hear the theme in midrange/HF when it is loud, and harder to hear it in lower freq ranges when the orchestra may cover up the instruments playing the theme softly, so this is a great piece for audiophile testing as well. Enjoy, and I really mean it. |
Of course, I meant classical orchestral and chamber music concerts, which are about 2 hours long. There are very long classical operatic works like Wagner's Ring cycle, which totals about 20 hours. Individual operas within that cycle are 4-5 hours, but there are intermissions, so there is about 90 min of maximum continuous music. Most operas are still only 2 hours or less. Performers are human beings who need rests from their intense work, as are listeners. It actually is work to listen carefully to best appreciate the music.
|
Guido,
Recently I sat up close in a 4 hand piano arrangement of The Rite of Spring. It was more violent than the orchestral version, believe it or not. This piano arrangement revealed so much that I didn't know from the orchestral version. It is extremely dynamic, but the piece has so much complexity that I think WC is better off at first with the popular pieces I mentioned. Also, the recordings of von Karajan are on the DG label, where the recording philosophy is lush and spacious which detracts from the excitement of these hard hitting pieces. Boulez recordings are on Columbia Records, now Sony Classical. Sony recordings have been criticized for stridency in some cases, but their upfront sound character suits these exciting pieces.
WC, for a short exciting solo piano piece, go for the last movement of the Beethoven Moonlight Sonata, only about 5 min of fast, furious dynamics, especially in the recording by pianist Vladimir Horowitz. You won't doze off, but if you do, a few seconds later a loud quick outburst will charge you up.
|
WC,
Right on with your perceptive observations. Your wife has good ears also. How are you doing with some of the classical pieces rec by me, Guido, Al? The Prokofiev Classical Symphony rec by Al is only moderately loud at natural live levels. Peaks of 85-90 dB, most of it 60-70’s, much subtle details at 30-40 dB. You can listen to this piece at nearly live levels at night. The Lampi will reveal the low level detail best, which is important for full appreciation of classical pieces. Most classical digital recordings after 1990 are not harsh, so the ref 10 won’t be needed to soften the sound, and will be at a disadvantage by submerging the low level detail.
|
WC,
Agree with bigddesign3. The most important thing to do is get the balanced version of the Lampi. You will get 6 dB more gain, which will make any additional preamp unnecessary for most music, unless you are still addicted to euphonics. For maximum detail, ditch the additional preamp with its distortions. Also, the optimum position of the volume control for the highest needed volume is near wide open, for purity and fine gradations of volume options. If an additional preamp's gain at your max volume is mid position, you are getting a little more distortion. The differences between RCA and XLR cables are much less than the big advantages of using the XLR for its additional 6 dB output. If you still want even more gain in order to try amps with very low gain, many preamps with less euphonics than the ref 10 would be suitable, such as ref 6, Lux C900 especially for its tone controls, Block, Momentum if it has tone controls, etc.
|
jafox,
Cut out your disrespect for my comments. Your musical expertise is unlikely to hold a candle to mine. Whatever equipment I haven't heard, I gain insight from WC's accurate descriptions, so my comments have validity. Euphonics as described by WC are the opposite of accuracy, which you may not value, but WC certainly honestly states the difference. |
A person with expertise is not to be called arrogant or spewing nonsense. In most fields, the expert is well paid, appreciated and respected. When you are a passenger on a plane, you don't persecute the pilot who holds your life in his hands. There are many other obvious examples. In the case of audio, it is impossible to have a valid opinion without enough musical expertise, otherwise it is just a random trial and error process of spending money on toys without anything meaningful being accomplished. I don't expect any payment for my musical AND audio expertise, and there are plenty of people who value my input. And I don't assassinate the character of anyone I disagree with. The real technical experts here, such as almarg and bill_k, just give useful info without engaging in any nasty comments. Forthwith, I won't respond to anyone not offering proper respect.
|
grey9hound,
It is not necessary to hear every component yourself to have a valid comment. If WC or any reliable listener factually describes something as having a euphonic sound, you can make valid statements based on experiences with components you have heard that have this type of sound. In your case, you have heard solid state amps with dry sound that you don’t like, so if WC described the Boulder as such, you would not consider trying the Boulder in your system. You could make a totally correct statement that the Boulder PROBABLY is not good for a listener who wants sweet, laid back sound. If you went further and said the Boulder DEFINITELY is not good for a listener who wants sweet, laid back sound, I wouldn’t jump on you and accuse you of being the all-knowing ALMIGHTY--I would accept the possible inaccuracy of your statement but give you the benefit of the doubt and give you credit for a valid and useful comment. Useful, because someone who, like you, hates that type of sound, knows to avoid it, and also for someone who likes that type of sound, to consider it for their system. |
WC,
Although I have no experience with either the Pacific or those tubes, I suggest you get specific info from your sources as to why they prefer something. Grey9hound made a specific tube recommendation if you wanted to soften the sound--that is more useful than a source telling you to get this or that.
|
grey9hound,
Very interesting review of tube trials in Lampi Pacific. You know that I would prefer the KR300B, which is the stock tube. This probably explains the precision of the sound of this DAC which WC likes.
|
WC,
Tube rolling is obviously a complex subject. I believe it all boils down to the specs of each tube, and not a particular brand. Manufacturing quality control is variable, which produces different specs. That's why I would call Roger Modjeski who grades the tubes according to spec tolerances. Discuss the Lampi and what sound you want with him. Nobody does transistor rolling for SS equipment--you expect the SS manufacturer to do the matching and get the designed specs of the whole circuit. But tube rolling is akin to redesigning the parameters of the circuit, which might explain the large variations in sound with different tubes, both in specs and material variations not measurable by standard specs. Just my intuitions. |
I respect your need to move items in order to have money for the next items. This is all exciting, but it doesn't permit true comparisons which take time. For example, I anticipate the DCS Rossini will be excellent, but you won't really be able to appreciate the differences with the Vivaldi unless you go back and forth a few times between them simultaneously. Nobody's memory is that good. Even if your memory were perfect, the AC power quality can vary a lot more than differences between excellent components. And now you are throwing many different cables into the ring, so it is tough to do A/B's in a disciplined manner.
Speaking about AC conditioning, I looked up comments on AQ Niagara and Hurricane HC power cords. A poster named audiofool1 from 11/9/18 wasn't impressed with AQ, but he thought the Ansuz stuff was best for transparency. So I am glad you got started with an Ansuz cable, and hope you can try the Ansuz Mainz D8 or other series power distributors, comparing with the AQ Niagara and Hurricane or Dragon power cords.
|
WC,
Nelson Pass has stated that his philosophy is to design for a specific likable euphonic sound in mind. While there are differences, and it is possible that the xs series might be different from the usual euphonics, it is too expensive to find out, especially when you have the excellent Titan which probably beats any Pass. For your ultimate amp, you have the Block which is probably a keeper for a long time, so your money is tied up with that.
|
I thank everyone who opened my eyes about the Lampi Pacific. I am looking for precision/accuracy, and with the KR300B, the Pacific may provide it. However, bigddesign3 said that the Lampi with its tubes may provide a good balance with SS amps, so I am wondering if that means it is still euphonic like most tube preamps, although much less, in the manner of ARC ref 6 rather than ref 10. A finished DAC product is a combination of an amplification stage plus the DAC chips or circuit. I am wondering how much of the difference in DAC products is from the differences in DAC's or the preamp stage. I suspect that the quality of the Pacific is mainly due to its preamp stage where tube rolling has a big effect. If the designer has chosen the KR300B tube for its precise sound, he may have designed the most accurate tube preamp as well, which is already included in the Pacific. A tube is a natural amplification device by virtue of its vacuum, rather than SS where electrons flow thru material. I believe that someone is capable of designing a tube circuit, using the right tubes, which gives the holy grail of both accuracy and naturalness, without the need to obtain an approximation of naturalness by injecting pleasant euphonics. Maybe the designer of the Pacific has achieved the holy grail. Are there any SS DAC's in a similar price range as the Pacific that have greater accuracy/precision?
|
grey9hound,
Thanks for your info about tube SPECS. So I guess that different designs and implementations use different materials, which have their "sound". Perhaps these materials have specs that conventional measurements don't reveal, in a manner similar to how amps with low distortion in certain parameters still have different sound. Also, Roger Modjeski found variations in those conventional specs due to random manufacturing quality control, so he grades tubes on the basis of the amounts of tolerances permitted. I wonder whether he grades KR300B's. Also, WC said that various tubes have different gain, but that is probably true of totally different tubes, but not for the same tube made by different manufacturers which would still have the same specs. In any case, the differences in gain would probably be much smaller than the 6 dB output difference from XLR vs RCA.
In a related vein, this reminds me of how some manufacturers of tube and SS amps let the user adjust the bias to change the sound. Lower bias often makes the sound more detailed and dryer, higher bias makes the sound less detailed and warmer, from my reading.
|
WC,
A simple thing you can do is to sit closer to the speakers. It is true that having the speakers as far from all walls as possible will decrease the bass. However, room colorations are lessened in this way, which helps detail and spatiality. To restore some bass, sitting closer helps. The speakers LOOK bigger (that's obvious), and the overall sound is bigger--everything--bass, midrange, HF. Of course, if you sit too close, the drivers may not gel, and the sound loses focus and coherence. |
psnyder149,
The absolute difference of 0.1% is much more truthful and relevant than a relative difference of 100%. That is true regardless of the entity you are evaluating. Certainly, covid deaths are most serious, and even 0.1% is nothing to ignore. But the headline 100% difference sounds a lot more serious than it really is. But the important thing I said is that statistical manipulations distort the truth. Your analogy of the 2 self taught delusional pilots deliberately distorts what I was trying to say. The point is that if you have 2 competent pilots, they are in the minority, but they better serve the passengers than the 100 incompetent passengers in the majority.
For audio assessment at the highest level, I look to speak to people knowledgeable about music and technical audio, and who have the necessary live unamplified music experience to support that. My knowledge and experience is certainly not complete, so I want to hear from other competent people who play other instruments, go to concerts in halls I've never been in, etc. If I can find 5 such people, that gives more reliable objective assessment of components than 500 people who only listen to processed rock/pop and are not interested in high fidelity. If one is not interested in high fidelity, but rather what sounds good, try to gain useful information from such listeners about why they like something. All you'll get is some vague assertion that he likes it but doesn't know why, or what the natural real sound of the instrument is. He has much less real knowledge than a few people who really have expertise. I am delighted to read the impressions of a new poster, mikem, who knows what he is talking about. No, I don't like him merely because he has my tastes, but because of the way he describes natural music and his experiences with components of different sonic qualities.
Jay is an excellent, perceptive listener, so even though he is not one of the top musical experts I would like to meet, he has lots of experience with many levels of components, and I agree with his observations if not always with his preferences. Now he is realizing the supreme importance of neutrality, perhaps partially due to my prodding, but more important his own careful listening which has confirmed my position on this matter. His experience and judgment which I have verified means that I have come to trust his objective findings. He is much more informative to me than 500 readers of this thread who don't have the experience to reliably judge sound.
So much for the flawed harping on statistics. More generally, do you value a few trusted friends, or do you crave 1000's of acquaintances as a politician would? Always go for quality rather than quantity in everything you do in life.
|
People talk about "tube-like" mids and highs. Does that imply relaxed with less analytical precision? It looks like the Lampi Pacific with KR300B tubes is on the precise side and less relaxed than with the KR PX4 tubes, according to the interesting article posted by grey9hound. So does the PX4 make the Lampi more tube-like? The ARC ref 10 may be considered more tube-like than the ref 6 because of its more relaxed, laid back and buttery (good word, WC) sound. So what does tube-like really mean if there are so many types of tube sound?
|
WC,
All the tube products I mentioned have widely varying types of sound. Because of this, I think people need to be specific about sound character, rather than saying something is "tube-like." I believe the common perception of tubes is that they are mellow and laid back with that "magic." By this definition, you could say that the ref 10 is more tube-like than ref 6, the Lampi Pacific with the PX4 tube is more tube-like than with the 300B. But is the Pacifc with 300B still "tube-like" compared to SS DAC's such as the Ayre, or is the Pacific/300B more precise and upfront than the Ayre? Then that would made the Ayre more "tube-like" than the Pacific/300B. So, since there are tube products like ref 6 and Pacific/300B with upfront, sharp and snappy qualities, I think this common definition of "tube-like" should be scrapped in favor of more informative descriptions of sound.
|
ron17,
Yes, to me your following description is the most informative--"the mid and top end are smooth, liquid, non fatiguing, easy on the ears." Summary translation by me--the HF are attenuated compared to other products. Both your description and my translation are specific, objective statements that are useful to listeners of all tastes. I assume that they describe your perception of the Sim. Then, for a reasonable description of the Plinius, "the mid and top end freq range could be attenuated by a few dB making it easier to listen to for long periods of time." This, plus your earlier description of the Plinius as "more forward sounding than the Sim. Extremely powerful bass...midrange and top end sounded ever so slightly exaggerated or tilted up (almost like a tone control tilt)," deliver the most useful, objective information. WC also praised the accuracy of your perceptions of the Plinius and Sim. But saying that something is "tube-like" is very murky by comparison, especially since there may be a few tube pieces that are NOT "easy on the ears, smooth, nonfatiguing, etc."
So my question about the Lampi Pacific with KR300B tubes is, "is it still tube-like (excuse the expression) in the sense that it is relatively easy on the ears, smooth and relaxed and such, compared to the top SS DAC's out there?"
|
psnyder149,
My posts have been useful to WC. He has also clarified his descriptions in response to my questions, which many people on this thread have found useful. Furthermore, this thread IS about respect for EVERYONE who contributes. Don't use inflammatory language like "you don't know what you are talking about." Just state your observations as factually and objectively clearly as possible. |
ron17,
OK, I agree that in a few words, your description is similar to that of Doug Schneider. Of course, he is getting paid and is getting name recognition and reputation for his more detailed description, and it is a great example of what I mean by an informative review. It is true that he summarizes the details of his descriptions by using the term, "tube-like" which has the same meaning understood by most people.
My goal is to find equipment that is most revealing, precise and crystal clear. I have an open mind as to any device that can do it, be it triode, pentode, bipolar, MOSFET, J-FET, conventional bandwidth or GaN. Surely there is tube equipment with these characteristics. Therefore, to refer to typical tube sound is just as indefinite as referring to typical SS sound, since there is plenty of SS stuff that sounds soft, warm, rich, etc. |
psynder149,
Sorry for the confusion, because you're right that you didn't say, "you don't know what you are talking about." I said that as general advice for others to avoid saying things like that. It is true what you said that my comments about violins and concert halls don't directly relate to amps, but they were meant to explain in more detail about sonic characteristics by making useful analogies that some people may understand from their experience. WC does the same thing when he talks about high performance cars, food and liquor, and high maintenance women, which give color and help to better explain his findings about his equipment.
|
fsmithjack,
I don't know anything about this turntable, but my vast experience with many TT's such as AR, Denon 6000, Linn Sondek, SOTA Sapphire, Win Labs belt and direct drive, Goldmund Studio, plus so many tonearms, cartridges, phono stages, stepup transformers, may help. These are all complex systems where synergy is important, so the only way to judge is to listen. If you have the same recording on LP and CD and you are familiar with your own and/or the dealer's reference phono system and CD/DAC, you can listen and decide. Too bad cartridges are not returnable, so this is one reason why many have given up on phono. If you want precision and detail, the Rega 10 with Apheta 2 cartridge for $6600. is a great package, reasonably priced.
|
fsmithjack,
Thanks for your comparison of the Bricasti DAC to the Rega/Sutherland phono system. Did you use the same recording on LP vs CD for the comparison? Reviews say the Bricasti is very detailed with great transients and also some warmth. The Rega is supposed to be very detailed but perhaps sterile to some. Is this what you found, or were there other sonic qualities that you preferred in the Bricasti? The Rega RP10 is similar to the RP8, so the dominant factor is the Apheta 2 cartridge. Perhaps you didn’t like the cartridge. If you still have the RP8, trying another compatible cartridge might be the easiest thing to do, such as the ones you mentioned. Can you compare the Bricasti to other DAC’s you have heard, maybe the Ayre QX-5 Twenty? Thanks so much.
|
folkfreak,
I hope you continue to post here about your vinyl and digital experience. Aside from the speakers, the source is the most dominant factor affecting the sound of the total system. A great recording is apparent even on the car system.
|
4425,
Did you try the Chord DAVE, which is reputed to have the best clarity at a semi-reasonable price? |
fsmithjack,
Thanks for your feedback. Whatever TT/arm you get, the cartridge is the most important item, although obviously the rest of the TT system supports the cartridge and is important. I had this discussion with someone on this thread many months ago. He felt the table was the most important, and I agreed that in some cases he was correct. For example, I had the highly touted SOTA Sapphire. Transferring my arm and cartridge from the Linn Sondek to the SOTA produced a heavy, leaden sound. I went back to the Linn to get fresh air again. Linn got famous in the 1970's by showing that the table is most important. I suspect that the skeletal Rega table/arm, combined with the clinical sound of the Apheta turned you off. The Apheta may not have been broken in enough, or aligned properly or loaded into the phono stage properly. The Rega is attractively priced, and I bet that a more mellow cartridge would please you with it. If you still don't like it, you still have the cartridge which could be used for another TT/arm. Hopefully you can find dealers who can do good demos for you with the same cartridge on different TT/arms. Don't buy anything because it looks good or you like the design. Your own listening is critically important. There is much more difference between different phono systems than between different digital systems. Also, the Sutherland from reviews is clinical, so maybe the whole setup was an overdose of clinical sound. Perhaps you like mellow?
|
ron17,
We are splitting hairs. I didn't really criticize you for saying "almost tube-like" because in the end I accept the customary meaning of "tube-like." It is almost a language convention where we know that a green light means go and a red light means stop. It still is informative to know that from WC descriptions, the ref 10 is more "tube-like" than the ref 6, even though they are both tube products from the same company. Then I used the word "mellow" to try to learn what fsmithjack likes and to figure out why he hated the Rega/Sutherland phono system. "Mellow" is a description of sound flavor, rather than referring to a type of equipment, whether tube or SS. I think everyone would agree about what "mellow" means, but owners of the Lampi Pacific with KR300B tubes might say their Pacific is very precise and not "tube-like" as far as the conventional meaning of that expression goes. I still want to know whether that Lampi is still "tube-like" compared to top SS DAC's, so the way "tube-like" is commonly understood, it is still a useful term after all.
|
spinaker01,
It appears you don't accept how relevant my comments are to WC's quest. He has found them useful, especially my advice to move the Neolith speakers further away from the wall. Many other examples. He also elaborates his own descriptions in response to my questions and observations, so many people get more value from his own further thoughts.
|
bigddesign3,
Yes, I also enjoyed that review of the Lampi Pacific that was posted by grey9hound last week. It got me interested in the idea that some tube equipment can be very precise and not "tube-like" (common understanding of most tube equipment). If you have heard the Lampi Pacific with the KR300B tubes, do you find it as precise as top SS dac's, or is it still a little "tube-like"?
|
WC,
You are an honorable gentleman. I try to keep my posts as short as possible, but often you and others raise thought-provoking issues that stoke my enthusiasm. All the productive comments on so many levels of experience make your thread the leading commentary that it is. You set an enthusiastic tone that keeps us going--thanks for everything. |
WC,
I think of the life you must have had in the army or other experiences of stress and drama. I really feel you would find profound meaning in the whole piece of the Shostakovich 5th Symphony I mentioned. It is long, about 45 minutes, in 4 movements (sections) of various moods. It is worth your patience in getting to know it. Live dynamics of this piece range from 20 dB to 110 dB. Speeds from slow to furiously fast.
|
|
WC,
I am not sure what you mean by "I love tubes with solid state preamps." The sound of any DAC is a combination of its preamp stage and the DAC chip or proprietary dac module. If I am correct to say that the dac in the Lampi Pacific is not the Sabre 9018 which is hot according to greyhound, then the Pacific sounds precise due to its preamp stage. Is its preamp stage still a little tubey? Getting the Ayre Twenty preamp would be informative.
|
WC,
You found the Esoteric DAC (which model, I forgot?) to be very detailed and non forgiving. Similar to the Lampi Pacific with stock KR300B tubes? Or do you find the Lampi somewhat more forgiving and slightly tube-like compared to the Esoteric?
|
WC,
Thanks for your further elaboration on the Esoteric vs Lampi. For those who want detail and tolerate the revealed flaws of poor recordings, the Esoteric looks like a best buy. Anyone have other DAC contenders for detail at sane prices?
|
WC,
You can nitpick about the volume control and RCA/XLR connections of the Ayre preamp, but the bottom line is the sound. By reputation, it should provide the speed of SS plus some smoothness and maybe some warmth you like. So it may be just what you are looking for in tonal quality and resolution. Let's see how the Ayre competes with the Lampi preamp in sound flavor.
|
I got the price wrong on the Esoteric k1. Evidently it was the Grandioso player that WC had, at $31K. How do the cheaper Esoteric models compare to the Grandioso k1? What is the relative importance of a CD/SACD transport vs DAC? Is it a compromise to use your cheaper CD transport with the flagship Esoteric DAC at $20K, or better to get the Grandioso k1? These issues are analogous to turntables, tonearms and cartridges. In my experience with cartridges, it is the most important factor, analogous to the DAC, the transducer. Turntables are still important, analogous to the CD/SACD transport.
|
guido,
Thanks. It's complicated keeping straight the Esoteric model numbers. At home, since you appear to have used the X-01 as a complete CD player and also as a transport (correct me if I misunderstood), what were the sonic comparisons between the X-01 as a DAC and your Rowland Aeris DAC?
|
guido,
Many thanks. I have a Krell 64x oversampling dac from maybe 25+ years ago. Krell did their own proprietary design, not using any stock chip. The power supply weighs 20 lbs, similar for the other box containing the circuit. Even though the design is old, it may still have near SOTA sound, since it competes very well with my Benchmark DAC1 unit. So your comparison of the Aeris to the X-01 may still be useful, thanks.
|
WC,
I had several of the Nordost Frey 2 series. Initially I was impressed with the precision of the RCA and XLR interconnects. After 100's of hours, they became mushy. Just be careful about these expensive Nordosts. No assurance that the most expensive will give you the sound you want. A lot of cable technical talk is snake oil.
|
Ansuz designers used to work at Nordost. Both Nordost and Ansuz have enormous range of prices, with Ansuz being the worst at their flagship level.
|
WC,
It appears that Odin power cords are doing more than just transferring power effectively, which could be obtained cheaply by using a huge 4 gauge cable. As you say, it is a COMPONENT which reveals more information with clarity. I have always said that when you have more clarity, satisfaction can be obtained at lower volumes, which you have found. If you don't want to spend $100K for 4 Odins, you might obtain much the same clarity by eliminating euphonic components like the ref 10. Someone said that unity gain on the ref 10 is at a volume setting of 60. Listen to a piece where 60 on the volume control is satisfying, then remove the ref 10 and hear the same piece at the same volume, but with enhanced clarity, probably a similar outcome as using an Odin. Then if you need more volume, you can look for accurate preamps.
|
