My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
Here is a short violin solo from Tchaikovsky Swan Lake, a beloved piece by everyone, including many listeners without much background in classical music. This great violinist, David Nadien played in the soundtracks of many early movies, and taught many young professionals I knew. His sweet yet intense sound was loved by everyone. Enjoy all. https://youtu.be/GRp2JyOLz8E |
WC, Whichever speaker cable is the winner this weekend, spend ONE DOLLAR or so on zip cord. Buy lamp cord at a hardware store, etc. You will find it to be more focused, tighter, clearer by a mile than any fat speaker cable you have tried. Bass will be tighter and more revealing, even if it doesn't have quantitative oomph. Your buddies should drop on the floor when they hear what zip cord does, in a blind test, against preconceived prejudices against it. About a month ago, we discussed this, and none of the technically knowledgeable people here could provide convincing explanations about why thin zip has these characteristics. In contrast, I have found that many power cords have better clarity than stock cords. So I am not surprised about your findings about Odin power cords and speaker cables. |
bigddesign3, I think you meant that one shouldn't give Martin Logans too much ENERGY in the highs, not too much CLARITY. It is fine to prefer a more subdued tonal balance with less highs, but clarity must never be sacrificed. Music is a type of language of sounds and words where clarity is paramount. Also, if you look at a classical music score (printed music) there is so much information present that no hifi listener has yet heard because all systems are veiled and lacking clarity to some extent. |
bigddesign3, Good. Also, imagine that you have a perfect system that reproduces live unamplifiied music indistinguishable from live. At the live volume, there are plenty of highs and every other sound attribute, and if you play your system at the same volume, both the live sound and your reproduced sound are pleasing without harshness. But if you then crank the volume of your system higher or get too close to live sound where the volume is too loud, there will be harshness in many areas, not just the highs. This should not be a justification to reduce the highs in a system just because you want to blast it louder than the natural live sound. Perfect reproduction involves the usual goals of balance and information retrieval, and also the proper natural volume, not blasting. |
bigddesign3, OK, I understand your needs. For casual but attentive listening to the radio off axis while I am eating, I listen at much lower than live volumes. To get better clarity, it helps to boost the HF when they are rolled off by listening way off axis. At low volumes, the HF boost is not irritating. Cheers to you. |
4425's findings are consistent with reviews I have read that Nordost series 2 cables are warmer than the series 1 versions. Too bad I have had no comparative experience in this area. When series 1 came out, many people criticized them for leanness and brightness, so Nordost gave them what they wanted in the series 2. |
WC, Just from your videos, looking at your forearms, I can see that you are strong and muscular, but not a slow obese guy. When I see muscular large patients, I measure their body fat % to see if their weight is from predominantly muscle or fat. As with audio, it is desirable to have a combination of good attributes like muscularity AND low body fat. |
WC, Again, I will state that the price of a component often has little correlation with sound quality. Expensive Dag will likely still have a sweet emphasis, rather than neutral. That is the Dag sound preference, aka house sound. You found this out with expensive Pass--it still had the sweet Pass house sound. For neutrality/clarity, we both agree that the Sim is better than the Dag 250 for a much lower price. The Relentless Dag has heavier construction and more and better parts, but still probably has the same Dag sweet sound. And the name, Relentless is merely clever marketing that can be used to suck in wealthy 'files that don't know truthful natural sound. You cannot have ultimate resolution/detail/clarity and sweetness at the same time. This is true of audio systems and the sounds of anything in the real world. Real sounds vary in the balance of sweetness/softness and sharp hardness. Buzzsaws and golf club hits are hard but not at all sweet. Bouncing a tennis ball on a blanket is soft but not hard. Drumheads have varied materials and can be tuned from soft to tight. Whatever the design, they are not sweet and tight simultaneously. Violinists who prefer softer sounds use gut strings, and other violinists who prefer tighter, brilliant sounds use synthetic or steel strings. Take your pick of one or the other. Some amps like Classe are detailed and also sweet, but there is a compromise--moderate detail with moderate sweetness, but not ultimate detail nor super-sweetness. |
WC, The Pass XP15 phono stage in my system was euphonic--complete lack of sparkle. I wouldn't be surprised if your XP30 line preamp is euphonic compared to ARC ref 10 and especially ref 6. Even the reasonably priced Lux C900 preamp would probably be less euphonic. And don't forget the virtues of the tone controls on the Lux. Tone controls show much greater differences than interconnects. But fat speaker wires drastically muffle the sound compared to zip cord. I have been withholding further mentioning Merrill electronics until I personally heard the new Element amps, but on the Merrill Element thread, there is an enthusiastic comment by mattnshilp comparing Rowland 625 S2 to Element 116. Rowland is tube-like and Merrill is totally transparent and neutral. You might try the Merrill Christine preamp. The new Merrill stuff is eagerly anticipated, and even the slightly older flagship Christine preamp probably would have good resale value. Of course, when the Merrill Elements are all available, I will be auditioning at home and will report here. |
folkfreak, Maybe "euphonic" is an inaccurate term, but I use it because most people know what it means in terms of sonic character. That character is smoothed over HF which affects midrange and even bass instruments, making all instruments sound at best sweet, and often dull with reduction of natural harmonic overtones, compared to real life. I am not pleased at all by this, because I want maximum clarity and information from recordings, trying to have my system sound as close as possible to the excitement of live musicians up close, the way they are usually recorded. The problem with pursuing euphonic (veiled) sound is that some frequencies are more euphonic (veiled) than others, which create discontinuities. That may be applicable to your perceptions about the ARC tube amps you heard. But neutral, transparent electronics are the ideal, in part because all the frequencies are equally clear, creating less risk of discontinuities aka colorations. Live, unamplified music is neutral, so that's what I strive for in my system. When I achieve much of the sought accuracy, I am pleased, but that sound is not "euphonic" the way most people know it. |
I had trouble with this one. The recording is muddy. I much prefer the recording, Keith Don't Go, on the previous video, Valhalla 2/Audience Front Row. That recording is brilliant, with lots of guitar jangling in the beginning that is most useful for midrange and HF comparisons. Try to use the same recording for successive videos, which makes all comparisons easier and provides some reference point. When someone gets tired of the same recording, use another one that is brilliant in midrange/HF. Since youtube and computer audio are rolled off in HF, it is important to use brilliant recordings to compensate for these deficiencies. |
WC, As I said in the past, the smaller ML CLX plus a subwoofer will give you greater accuracy at all freq, although the Neo gives more quantity of bass. $30K retail for the CLX + REL which also better matches your room versus $80K for the Neo which is performing much less than 75% of its capability in a larger room, unless you play with Lyngdorf room correction. But there is no $10K dynamic speaker that will compete with either ML stat. |
WC, I can't contain my enthusiasm for your brilliant choice of this Paradigm 3F, mainly for the promise of the Be midrange driver. Before you report, I will stick my neck out without having heard these, that in many ways this will be your best speaker yet. I recant my words that no $10K dynamic speaker can compete with the Neo. The 3F will give your Magico big competition and will make its $10K price a superb value. The low mass high rigidity Be midrange and HF drivers are probably the best a dynamic speaker can do to compete with even lower mass electrostatic drivers. My guess is that the 3F will better the Neo in HF accuracy, only because large curved stat panels are rolled off in HF compared to smaller flat focused stat panels. The range covered by the Be drivers is comparable to that of the Neo, so it will be interesting to see how the 3F compares in resolution/accuracy to the Neo. Of course the Neo has more power and breadth of image, but this comes at a price of accuracy. Grey9hound's reservation about the minus 2dB point at 48 Hz will be countered by the probably high accuracy of the Be's mid and upper bass overtones which help enormously in satisfaction with overall bass quality, if not quantity. Don't soften the sound from the 3F--go for its accuracy and truth telling. Seek electronics and cables that are also accurate and revealing. Accuracy is addictive and you will want more of it. Just don't blast at unnatural high volumes and try to make the 3F sound like a powerful Klipschorn. Treat it like you did the Magico. Another woman analogy--appreciate a beautiful short woman in modest heels but don't put her in gross 8 inch heels to make her as tall as possible. Appreciate the smallish 3F for the beauty she is, well balanced and high accuracy for your room. |
WC, Just what I thought. Sure, the Neo is bigger in sound. But bigger isn't necessarily better. Size and depth are less important than accuracy and information retrieval at both low and moderately high volumes. See whether the 3F retrieves more information from your recordings, such as enunciation of words in songs. You should get familiar with classical music which has much more complexity than pop/rock, etc. Choral recordings such as Borodin Polovetzsin Dances have massed voices in Russian where the pronunciation is very hard to pick up. This is why accuracy is needed above all. So far the midrange accuracy of the 3F is most significant and important. |
WC, Wonderful! Don't be afraid of high freq. Upper mids and HF convey the natural harmonic overtones of bass and midrange fundamentals of all instruments. They are important for lifelike clarity and what makes things "pop" as you call it. Full toe-in with both 3F speakers facing your ears will give you maximum clarity. The Be drivers are lowest in distortion so their HF will not irritate you, provided you keep volumes sensible. Just get used to natural extended HF which will deliver the full overtones of midrange instruments and voices, even plucks of the string bass and the growl attack of mid bass brass and drums. I should mention why I have come to hate big sound fields. My first audiophile speaker in 1978 was the Magneplanar Tympani 1D. The HF part of the panels mesmerized me, and the huge sound field was exciting at first. These were like room dividers like those nice screens for changing clothes in movies--each speaker was 6 ft tall, the maximum width was 4 ft but folding the panels brought the width down to about 3.5 ft. If the inner edges of each speaker were 5 ft apart, then the outer edges were 12 feet apart. So the sound field was at least 12 ft wide--huge, but unfortunately the images were huge and unnatural, with a singer being huge like a hippopotamus. Totally wrong and un-lifelike, with penalties in clarity. (The same was true when I heard a friend's KLH 9 stats a few years ago. The KLH 9 was one of the most famous stats of all time. The KLH 9 was the size of the Maggie 3 series, smaller than my Tympani 1D.) The tone was nice, but I couldn't take the unnatural bloated images. So I got rid of the Tympani after 1 year, and found much more satisfaction with the little BBC mini monitor, the Rogers LS 3/5a. Even though the Rogers had conventional dynamic drivers that weren't as fast as the planar drivers of the Maggie, the smaller focused image of the Rogers won me over. I only sold the Rogers after I found my present electrostatics, the Audiostatic 240, whose moderate sized image is just right. So I hope you come to appreciate the 3F, whose overall clarity seems to beat the Neo, since you "understand the lyrics better than ever." Toe-in will enhance the clarity even more. And the moderate size of the 3F will produce lifelike naturally sized images. The 3F is a wonderful discovery and represents top value. Congratulations! |
WC, Also, the Soundstage review of the Paradigm Persona model B suggests that it is more revealing and has more snap than the Martin Logan classic 9 model. Aside from the deficient low bass of the B, it may be better than the 3F above 60 Hz, since the Be midrange driver is also used down to 60Hz. The aluminum bass driver of the F series is not as fast/accurate as the Be driver in the model B. It is exciting that the Be drivers as used here can compete and even exceed the resolution/accuracy of the electrostatic elements of that ML model. Then the ultimate shootout would be between the $7K model B and the $25K ML CLX which have similar bass response, but the Be tweeter is more extended. What do you find when comparing the HF of the 3F and the Neo? |
WC, Whichever speaker lets you hear more of the words in songs is the superior one. That speaker will also reveal more of the natural metal shine of cymbals, triangles, etc. Size, 3D, depth are secondary in musical importance. So far from what you have reported, the 3F is superior to the Neo in musically important criteria. It is the best speaker you have ever had. The larger F models will have more energy than the 3F but more of that energy will come from inferior aluminum drivers. A greater proportion of the 3F energy is from the superior Be drivers. Since the B model uses only Be drivers, it is probable that it has the highest accuracy from 60 Hz on up of any Persona speaker. Listen more to your 3F and don't be hasty to go for the bigger F speakers, which will be more like the Neo for big type of sound, with its lower resolution. |
I also hate reverb and other processing effects which detract from the pure sound of the musicians. For comparison purposes, I like relatively natural simple recordings like "Man in the moon" which feature a single voice and guitar, although there are other guitars on a few tracks of that Acoustic Live album. Importantly, I enjoy this music, so the taxing exercise of evaluation has the rewards of nice music and lyrics. I thank Jay for introducing me to this album. |
yyzsantabarbara, Thanks for the info on the Yamaha NS5000 speaker. I am not necessarily married to electrostatics and I welcome new technology for drivers. My only caveat is when someone says the Yamaha is better than the Persona 3F they could be criticizing the Be tweeter which they think is too crisp. Their bias may be in favor of more laid back sound. You should do the listening comparison yourself. Keep us posted. |
ihasaguy, I haven’t heard the 30.7 Maggies, but my vast experience with big speakers has shown them to have inferior resolution and more bass heavy sound compared to their smaller siblings. Many years ago, I compared the new Maggie 20 to the 3 model of that time. The 20 was heavy and bloated in the bass/midrange and image, duller due to less HF. On the previous page I told of my early experience with the Tympani 1D. The 30.7 is just a revised Tympani 1D with better resolution due to the ribbon drivers compared to the planar magnetic drivers of the Tympani. The 30.7 will still have a bloated image just like the Tympani. Electrostatic drivers still have more resolution than ribbons even if ribbons have excellent HF extension. |
WC, I hear ya. Yes, big spaces are addictive, which are only obtained with large panels. But recall my experience with the big panels of the Magneplanar Tympani 1D. Very soon the big space lost its appeal, because musical detail was compromised. It is amazing how I went from the big space of the Tympani to the tiny space of the BBC minimonitor. The better clarity of the mini even with inferior dynamic drivers was the greater reward. I agree that the larger Personas will not duplicate the big space of the Neo, and will probably have less clarity than the 3F. I am even considering the model B for myself with its Be-only drivers hopefully bringing maximum clarity. You might even consider the Yamaha NS5000 with its possibly superior Zylon-only drivers. One review noted that the tweeter is a little laid back, which you might like, although I probably won't. So the next speaker that I go to listen to will be the Persona B. If you are still addicted to big spaces, you might go to listen to the huge Maggie 30.7, but its clarity might be less than the Neo because of the inferior ribbons compared to the stat drivers of the Neo. Forget about any Wilson, whose driver technology is inferior to Be. My listening to Sabrina and Sasha showed them to be really veiled compared to any electrostatic. The Personas or Yamaha are probably SOTA dynamic speakers. Just appreciate them for what they do, and realize that you cannot have everything. Admit that designs with big sound fields are compromised in clarity. I think the best thing to do is nothing at present. Live with the better clarity of the 3F for an extended period of time, and then see if your infatuation with big spaces wears off in favor of clarity. BTW, I am a little confused about whether you meant that the 3F has the best midrange for a dynamic speaker, or whether its midrange still beats the clarity of the Neo. You rated the 3F midrange as 10/10 at first, but do you now find that the midrange of the Neo is 10/10 and the 3F is only 9.5/10? Are words in songs clearest with the Neo or 3F? |
Thanks for your thoughts. However, I feel that while listeners may have different subjective preferences, they should all agree on objective things, like X sounds more muffled than Y, or has less detail than Y. If listeners disagree about the objective facts, then the video is not revealing enough when heard through mediocre computer audio. If differences are not significant, then random, all over the map findings may occur. Since 4425 found the Valhalla 2 to be warm, and you found that Valhalla 2 softens the brightness of the Odin 1, both of your observations are consistent. Also, you first said that the ansuz was mind blowing, but I didn't hear much difference in your latest video--probably again due to the dull recording and mediocre computer audio I am using. So I suggest using the more brilliant recordings for future comparisons. |
WC, Yes, I realize that the Neo has "BIGGER mids that hang in the air," but the critical question is whether the Neo or the 3F is superior for details, such as hearing all the words and their inflections in the song. When a woman murmurs and whispers sweet nothings, the sound of her voice in all its subtleties gets us excited, and we don't ask "where is your soundstage, depth, etc." Is that another great woman analogy, or what? LOL. Your answer will shed light on the critical question of whether the electrostatic diaphragm and its total control by the stator sandwich electric field can be approached or beaten by the new high tech materials for dynamic drivers, such as Be in the Personas or Zylon in the Yamaha. My intuition is that the stat diaphragm which is still lower in mass than these new materials and is tightly controlled by the stator sandwich is still superior in resolution/detail. However, this is a great opportunity for you to do careful listening and say whether my intuition is correct or not. |
audiotroy, Thanks for your info on several Persona F speakers and the comparison with the Neolith. I have not heard the Neolith, but have heard large curved Soundlabs and agree with your analysis based on listening and theoretical considerations of the drawbacks of large curved panels. I am looking forward to visiting you to hear the Personas (you probably know who I am). Without hearing them, I venture to say that if the 5F sounds "more relaxed" than the 3F, this is because the inferior aluminum additional bass drivers which cover the range from 450 Hz down are a greater proportion of the sound than in the 3F which has only 1 bass driver. If you can live with the dynamic and low frequency limitation of the B model, it should provide the purest sound below 450 Hz because the superior Be driver is used rather than the aluminum drivers of the bigger models. Please do not use a sales pitch and say that the more expensive item must be better. Often the more expensive speakers are designed to have bigger sound, but their clarity could be inferior. Huge rooms of the rich will demand bigger speakers, but the average moderate sized or small room will make a better match and possibly more clarity with the smaller models. Obviously the small B won't match the large room as well as the larger models, so it is worthwhile for a speaker manufacturer to have different models to suit different rooms, tastes and budgets. Still, if a listener loves the clarity of the small B, he can sit close to it at one end of a large room and get the advantage of the clarity even in that large room. |
jetter, Ah, the charms of experience for both of us. Since we love our speakers, it doesn't matter that the resale value is much lower, because we are not selling. We have enjoyed them for a long time, so they have provided value. As for my Audiostatic, I have collected spare panels and transformers. Same for my friend who owns KLH 9 stats. Take a look at the audiostatic website which offers a new design which nearly fits my ideal of the most perfectly designed stat--moderate size with relatively narrow flat panel. The designer is old, and I am not sure they are really available. If they are, I may take a chance for only 3000 euros plus customs duty. What is the usual duty from Holland to NY? Having been inspired by WC's willingness to take a chance on far more expensive items, I will try to get them. |
mlimpression, The ML speaker (is it a hybrid electrostatic?) tells the truth with highest accuracy. Personally, I want electronics and sources to be accurate also, but you have to decide whether your tastes are like mine or whether you want euphonic, tube-like smooth sound with rolled off highs, etc. The ML will reveal everything you have in the front of it, like amps, DAC's, etc. For great sound and terrific value, I love my Mytek Brooklyn amp at only $2000. If you don't listen loud and don't need additional gain, you can't do any better for total transparency than the Luminous passive preamp as described by mrdecibel about 4-6 months ago. Review his posts. |
WC, As thezaks (Dave) mentioned, another option for large soundstages is any tall line source speaker. The GT Audio without the subwoofer addition of faxer is an example. It is tall and narrow. Another example is one of the models of Wisdom Audio which makes SOTA ribbons. Both of these speakers have more accuracy than any Maggie to my ears. These tall speakers give a wide and deep stage, but with less bloating and smearing than large panels. A singer has the dimensions of a baby elephant compared to a big elephant from large panels. The reason is that the large panel has duplication of drivers from all its parts, so is like a dynamic speaker with dozens of little drivers spread on its large blanket. This is NOT true to life. Imagine 12 musicians spread out in a horizontal line across a stage. The whole stage is wide, but each musician has small width and is more like a point source. The point source speaker will most accurately reproduce the true point source of each musician. The line source is less accurate than the point source, because it has vertical duplication of the drivers, but is needed to provide more volume output from the inefficient transducers. Least accurate is the big panel. The big panel is only appropriate for reproducing very large instruments like the 9 foot piano or church pipe organ. A horn speaker is an interesting case of a hugely dynamic speaker as a point source. The small driver in the throat of the horn is naturally amplified by the horn, so you get the best dynamics of any speaker, better than the Neo or Soundlab or huge Maggie 30.7. Images are more focused from the horn than from the large panel. The Klipschorn is a point source in the midrange and HF with a large wavefront launch in the bass only. This imaging is true to life, because mid/HF instruments like acoustic guitars, voices and brass are near-point sources, whereas bass instruments like the string bass are much larger. I remember you didn't like the "shouty" quality of some horn speakers you heard in the past, but the horn speaker really yields the most lifelike images. Here is where a dedicated EQ like the Rane can save the day by modifying the tone to your taste. But I still say that the best compromise for you might be the Persona 9H. The bass controlled system might make the inferior aluminum driver as accurate or more so than the Be driver for the bass used in the model B. The big IF is whether the Be midrange driver equals or exceeds the resolution of the stat driver of the Neo, so I would like your opinion on that. It is about resolution, not bigness. If the 3F still doesn't give the midrange resolution (think clarity of words in the song) of the Neo, then you might as well stick with the Neo. In that case, the 9H will just be another expensive dynamic speaker that still can't compete in resolution to the electrostatic. |
WC, Can you answer the most important question about which speaker's midrange is the most accurate and detailed--the 3F or Neo? If it is the Neo, stay with it. If it is the 3F, you know what I advised. It is not a matter of money--an expensive horse with gold plated carriage will be outperformed by the cheapest car on the market. It is about technology--are the new Be or Zylon drivers more accurate than the old tech electrostatic technology? The cheapest ML stat is more accurate than most or all $100K-plus dynamic speakers. |
WC, My impression hearing that you find the Neo the most transparent is that they have the greatest accuracy as well, so you are able to hear the words in the song more clearly than with the 3F. Am I correct? If so, then electrostatic midrange still is more accurate than even the high tech materials in dynamic drivers. But the HF of the Neo are not as revealing as the HF of the 3F. So the 3F is basically a very high value version of the Magico you had, even better on an absolute basis. The weak point of the Neo is the large curved diaphragm which rolls off the highs compared to a smaller diaphragm dedicated to the HF, such as the ML CLX. I have always felt the CLX to be better than the Neo in every way except for ultimate dynamics and bass extension. The imaging of the CLX will be tighter and more focused than the Neo, because most of the image down to 300 Hz is created by the narrower diaphragm. With the CLX you have the wonderful midrange of the stat, probably more accurate than the Neo because of its smaller panel dedicated to the midrange and HF. The CLX image should be a decent size because it is still a panel. The Be tweeter of the persona F series is probably still more accurate than the CLX HF, only because the CLX still uses a curved panel. Flat stat panels like my Audiostatic or the original King Sound King have better HF response in the sweet spot than the CLX, but for a readily available stat, the CLX is tops. |
dguitarnut and WC, I agree that the Avantgarde horn speaker is a top contender for WC. I heard the original Trio model at a NY show with a low power tube amp. This didn't include the humongous bass horns now available. The Trio did well even in that small room, and I was sitting close, in the front row. The HF were excellent, possibly better than from the Neo. And that was from a tube amp, which usually sounds rolled off on most speakers. Brass instruments were present and crisp as a testament to the accuracy of midrange and HF. Imaging was natural, without the bloating of large panel speakers. So for dynamics, overall accuracy and proper imaging, I believe the AG Trio beats the Neo. The only question is whether the AG midrange is as accurate as the Neo. I suspect not quite, since electrostatic technology is still superior to any dynamic driver. Now if AG decides to use Be or Zylon for these drivers, the use of the horn would bring even less distortion to these drivers, and then the AG would be serious competition to any stat speaker. It appears that WC should just settle with his Neo for a long time, unless he switches to the ML CLX + REL subwoofer. |
allvinyl, Thanks for your feedback on the GT Audio line source speakers. They sounded good at Steve's house. I was never that impressed with any Acoustat from the X to later models. Most of the problems were because of the large curved panel of the X which rolls off the HF. Despite the superior electrostatic technology, the Acoustat X as a large curved panel is one of many poor implementations of stat technology. I feel that the GTA planar magnetic and ribbon drivers in line source configuration are a much better implementation of their technology, so the GT speaker is superior. They are a better implementation than any Maggie. Greg deserves to succeed and dethrone Maggie. The GT imaging is tall, of course, but it is more true to life and not bloated like from a large wide panel. |
WC, Looking at the Axpona exhibitor list for speakers I recommend Klipsch (hopefully they have the newest K-horn), Muraudio, Sanders, of course GT Audio and Martin Logan. Sanders are hybrid ESL’s that use flat panels. At a home in Virginia I heard an older model that was perhaps superior to the ML CLX in clarity, although at a NY show in a small closet-like room they were bad and rolled off in HF. Muraudio is an intriguing ESL hybrid design, used personally by Merrill W, the designer of the Element amps I am waiting to hear. I don’t understand what they mean by a point source, since the narrow panels are strung together like SoundLab in a medium size curved pattern. I don’t like omni speakers which usually are rolled off in HF because the drivers that are directed away from the ear have less HF heard than the drivers pointed at the ear, so there is time smearing. On the positive side, the electrostatic diaphragm is only 3.8 microns, which is thinner than the 6 microns of my Audiostatic. So Muraudio is worth a listen. As for people, be sure to meet Bill Parish of GTT Audio. He has the YG Acoustics speakers which are good but I think the Be technology of the Personas is better. I have seen people in his NJ home from far away. What a beautiful home with many rooms of goodies. You probably would like his Audionet electronics, which are sweeter than the neutral Mola Mola. He prefers Audionet. |
bigddesign3, The GT audio panels alone from my listening at fixer's house have accurate bass down to about 40 Hz or so. They were entirely potent for bass for almost all classical music--rarely did I hear the sub contribution. Maybe they don't have deep bass in the bottom octave, but the midbass accuracy from the tall panel makes low output deeper bass nonessential. |
WC, I wouldn't call the 3F a failure, since you yourself described its midrange as 10/10 of any dynamic speaker. You just happen to prioritize big dimensions of sound, so any small speaker of the future even if has the most accuracy/resolution won't satisfy you. But you may want to discover more of the words in a new song or subtle differences in the metal shine of cymbals that are presently buried in the recording mix. Will you turn to the 3F or the Neo? Bring such recordings to Axpona, and see if the Muraudio or Sanders stats reveal more information than the Neo or 3F. Meanwhile you have made a valuable contribution in introducing us to the virtues of Be drivers in nearly full range. Thanks for that. I wish horn manufacturers like Avantgarde would develop compression drivers using Be. Small diameter compression drivers amplified by horns are the most accurate dynamic drivers. My father's 1960 Altec horn used a one inch driver in its throat to cover a wide range of 500 to 22KHz. |
WC, Continuing ricev's point about preamps, technically if you use the Dag HD preamp, you are using 2 preamps in the system. The 1st is the preamp/volume control of the DCS, the 2nd is the Dag preamp/vol control. I could be wrong if the DCS has an option for a fixed output that bypasses its own preamp stage, so then you are just using 1 preamp--the Dag. You seem to like the inclusion of the Dag for its extra volume, which enables more dynamics, but realize that for purity and detail, there is nothing as good as eliminating the distortion of an added electronics stage, even if you like that distortion. A young mastering engineer who worked with famed Bob Ludwig, told me that everyone likes a particular type of distortion. Still, I liked the Dag HD preamp best of all the preamps you demonstrated. It would be nice to hear the comparison between DCS direct into Gryphon, and DCS + Dag + Gryphon. |
Based on comments in the link from yyzsantabarbara, the Krell XD is warmish and medium detailed. I wouldn't spend the money. I await the new Merrill Element 114 at $12K which Merrill says is very close to the SQ of the 116. See the comments of mattnshilp on the Merrill Element thread about the 116 vs Rowland 625 S2. The 116 is neutral with the highest level of clarity/transparency without fatigue, according to him. |
WC, The Rockport looks interesting. The relatively smaller drivers facing you will create a more correct focused image compared to the Neo, in the mid/HF. Its Be tweeter probably has more accurate HF than the Neo. This looks like a better version of the Persona 9H, or maybe not, because the 9H has the additional room correction feature to tighten up the bass. However, the Rockport doesn't have Be drivers for the midrange, so you will see if its midrange is as accurate as your 3F. Listen carefully at the dealer for accuracy (inteliigibility of words, etc.) not big soundstage which is only a type of virtual reality, or really virtual fantasy. But the most important question is whether all that money that went into the enclosure and carbon fiber midrange driver has created a midrange that exceeds electrostatics for accuracy. I DOUBT IT. If electrostatic midrange reigns supreme, then even any of the cheaper ML stats will have more accurate midrange than the 10-15x price Rockport. For that price, the dealer should accommodate you for 10 listening sessions of 2 hours each, so there is no need to go through the hassle of moving them into your room, losing a lot of money when you realize you made a mistake, etc. If you listen for accuracy, you will assess the Rockport in only a few sessions. Big sound fields and volume don't mean much if the accuracy/clarity is not SOTA. Those glowing reviews of expensive big speakers like Rockport merely compare them to other dynamic speakers, not electrostatics. Even John Atkinson of Stereophile in his recent review of the $200K Tidal speaker doesn't compare it to electrostatics. Although he is musically knowledgeable, he is a bass freak and devotes less analysis to accuracy of mid/HF. His business model is getting big ad dollars from expensive dynamic speaker companies, so his mag rarely reviews electrostatics which are cheaper and more accurate. Don't dump your Neo for a long time. At Axpona, listen to the electrostatics from Muraudio and Sanders Sound Systems, the GT Audio planar/ribbons, even the Klipschorn. Wait until the summer when the Yamaha NS5000 will be available in the US. Those all-Zylon drivers in the Yamaha look promising. Don't spend a penny on speakers until you have heard all these contenders. |
thezaks, Yes, I agree that my sonic priorities are different from many people here and elsewhere. My earliest musical experiences have taught me that overall clarity reigns supreme. When people were making live music and I walked in, I heard the clarity and excitement blazing at me like brilliant sunlight. There was no imaging, depth of field, etc. Nothing but brilliant sound. Spatially where it came from mattered less than its clarity. As far as an art form goes, some people like vague impressionistic painting, and others prefer the realism of the old masters. Those subjective preferences are fine, and although music itself is classified as an art form, the goal of high fidelity means that clarity should take on a greater importance. I was impressed by the artistry of some of my violin teachers, but I was surprised at their emphasis on precision and accurate, objective technique. They spent much less time discussing their interpretations and wanted me to improve my technique and play with more objective accuracy as a prerequisite to discussing the subjective art. |
