WC,
Thanks, very informative. What specific tonal qualities distinguish MQA vs non-MQA versions of the same recording, whether redbook or high rez original recordings? Any pros and cons? Now see if higher resolution/clarity of the 925 is associated with less beautiful sound than the Centaur. If the 925 still has the beauty along with more clarity, than you might want to try the Rowland Aeris dac, which Guido loves.
Slightly off topic, yesterday in a theater I saw the new movie, Alladin in the 3D version. I found the 3D effect artificial, like 2D paper cutouts suspended from the ceiling at various distances. Of course, natural 3D shows objects in 3D at various locations right to left and front and back. I got used to the movie 3D as it was, and would admit that sometimes it works. But a big disadvantage is that the 3D glasses you wear cut out the light by probably 75% or so. The 3D effect is there, but the overall ambiance is darker. So the analogy with audio systems is that reduced light illumination is like reduced clarity in audio, and the artificiality of 3D video is somewhat like bloated and indistinct images of perceived 3D of electronics.
|
WC,
Comparing 925 with Centaur, does the Centaur have less accuracy but more warmth of tone along with more space? How do 535 and 925 compare in these criteria? If you prefer the 925 over the Centaur for most important criteria, is the 32 dB of gain enough for you to not need the Virgo for volume? That would be nice, because bypassing the Virgo or any other preamp gives you more transparency/clarity. Does MQA sacrifice fine detail in the process of creating bigness? |
WC,
Since I am not a professional recording/mastering engineer, I listen for enjoyment of the music rather than critiquing the recording quality. Classical music is very complex and I need any component to reveal more of the music. I can easily ignore recording flaws if the volume is not too loud. There is more revealed musical beauty, so for me beauty is directly correlated with clarity. As for our favorite analogy, women are usually more beautiful when seen live up close, compared to untouched pictures where resolution is not quite as good as live.
|
WC,
Since I believe you can't afford to keep both the 925 and Centaur, other factors might help with your decision, but be patient. The 32 dB gain of the 925 will make it possible to eliminate the preamp, enhancing the clarity further as well as saving more money by eliminating another set of interconnects. As I recall, the lower 26 dB (as I recall) of the Centaur may require the preamp. At present, which amp is warmer in tone quality in midrange and HF? I have the impression that the Centaur is more bass oriented and less detailed than the 925, which is perhaps a little more truthful in midrange and HF. But the 925 is no wimpy low powered amp, and more break in as advised by Guido and others is appropriate. Don't discard this gem for the 5th time, literally.
|
WC,
I just read your comparison of 925 and Centaur. It is a superb, objective review of sound characteristics of each, and useful for people with different tastes. I just hope you can afford to keep the 925 around for the A/B between the 116. My guess is that the 925 and 116 will have similar character, but the Centaur will be in a different ballpark, so I think that the A/B of 925 and 116 will be more informative than Centaur and 116. Of course, an A/B/C of all these upper crust amps would be the ultimate audio review. |
WC,
Thanks for getting involved with Merrill. When will you get the 116? The Christine is an older piece of electronics, whereas only the Element amps use the GaN transistors. I don't know whether GaN is currently applicable to preamps or whether his R&D for the Element amps will be used to develop new preamps and other products. It will be interesting to see what the Element 116 does for you--it is claimed to be ultra neutral and fast but not sterile. It may not have the ballsy brute power of the Centaur, but it is in the running to compete with the 925 for what that amp does best. Accordingly, for sonic purity and clarity, I think the best shootout would be the Lampi directly into the 925 using the same 26 dB gain as the 116. That way the A/B between the 925 and 116 will be easier. Of course, you can do the A/B at 85-90 dB which you did smartly between the 925 and Centaur. This is loud enough to hear everything, but not too loud to cause fatigue and loss of discriminative ability. So you won't need the preamp to achieve 85-90 dB for either amp at 26 dB gain.
|
|
WC,
Very informative comparison of the Block and Centaur. I gather that the 925 has the most detail/clarity with a little more brightness than the Block, with the Block in the middle with its neutrality, and the Centaur at the other end of the spectrum with its sweetness and more forgiving nature suggestive of tubes. Is that a reasonable summary? I hope you can keep the 925 long enough to A/B with the Merrill 116 when you break it in (or is Merrill sending you a nicely broken in pair?). Guido compared the 925 to a prototype Merrill 118, but your review comparison of the finished 116 and 925 will be the first review of its kind, eagerly anticipated by the audiophile community, not just this thread. Let's have the fireworks! |
WC,
By synergy, are you referring to the neutral clarity of the Christine that tightens up the slight softness of the Connie (at least compared to the 925)? Next, try the Christine with the 925, and then perhaps the ultimate combo of Christine and 116. |
mrdecibel,
The 116 is powerful enough for the discriminating listener on any speaker--300 W into 8 ohms, 600 W into 4, 1200 W into 2, possibly 2000 W into 1, for electrostatics in HF. 118--400 W, 800 W, etc. Not much difference in percentage terms. Someone would need to do an A/B of the 116 and 118 to answer the question about sound quality. There was a self-serving comment by a dealer that the much more expensive 118 is better. Merrill himself said that even the stereo 114 sounds very close to the 116/118. If WC purchases the 116, that is clearly the sweet spot of the line, for powerful enough monos at a bargain price for what we hope is SOTA sound. Even the 118 is much cheaper than other SOTA contenders.
|
WC,
Be patient, especially now when your budget is tighter. In July or August with decent break-in of the 116, you will know whether it is SOTA. I am optimistic that it will beat any amp you have heard in most musically important ways, and be competitive with the 925. Gryphon is old school technology. So is Constellation, and you are about to find out whether the complete package of Merrill Christine and 116 beats everything you have heard. Is it possible to bypass the tube gain stage of the Lampi, and use only its dac with the gain stage of the Christine? I hope so, because that is probably the purest, most transparent way.
RIAA makes a good point that for class D, Merrill is among the most expensive, although the Rowland 925 and maybe others hold that title. Yes, Bernardsville is expensive. I am following developments with ricevs on the latest class D from Purifi, Bruno Putzeys' new company. This module has specs that beat his own NC1200 from Hypex, which already had the best specs in the industry. NAD has licensed this module, and it is expected that their amps based on it to be about $4K. I heard the old NAD M22, a respectable class D almost as good as the Classe D200 and amp 2 that you have, so I anticipate that the new NAD will be near SOTA at a very cheap price. Peter Lyngdorf, admired by grey9hound, is partnered with Bruno in his new company, and is about to release his MX8400, an 8 channel 400W class D based on the new module. Lyngdorf's old 3400 model is already an excellent class D based on reviews. So class D has a great immediate future for SOTA sound at a very reasonable cost. Even though the present SOTA pecking order is probably 118, 116, 114, I likewise don't want to hate myself for jumping too soon when much cheaper class D amps using Purifi modules are coming.
|
WC,
Congratulations on your new purist strategy to use a reference source Esoteric with all those complete preamp/amp systems. Guido uses a slightly different reference Rowland system--Aeris Dac with 925 amps, Esoteric (?) transport, using the gain stage of Aeris instead of Corus preamp. Your endeavor will be front page newsworthy. Meanwhile, how's the Merrill Christine going? I hope Merrill will let you keep the 116 enough time for this important project. |
WC,
By front end, I assume you are referring to the preamp, although some people include the source as the front end. We know that Constellation Centaur is on the sweet side, so the Virgo preamp probably is sweet also, although not as sweet as the ARC ref 10. Are you finding that the Merrill Christine preamp is sweet also? I am confused because initially you thought the Christine created synergy, and I asked you whether that meant that the Christine was neutral. I agree that the Esoteric is a good move, since in the past you had an Esoteric and found it to be detailed and neutral. Another possibility is that the Connie sound changes with the power grid quality, which you noted recently. This might be true of the other electronics as well, so be careful not to draw conclusions based on 1 day of listening when you might be lucky to have less noise in the power grid. It takes a long time to assess anything, as you average the good and bad days. I find my Shunyata Denali extremely helpful in reducing the variations between good and bad days. |
tecknik,
I hope Merrill gets the reputation he deserves, because although his stuff is expensive on an absolute basis, it seems reasonably priced in relation to the performance, unlike most of the big established names. I like to support the underdog newcomer if he really delivers. We will know from WC soon.
|
Grey9hound makes valid points that all details of the setups (cables, etc.) should be noted, otherwise it gets too confusing and hard to draw conclusions about preamp/amp character. That said, I suspect that preamp/amp differences are much greater than cable differences.
WC,
Even though slam/soundstage seems to be your greatest priority, it would be a shame to reject the components that feature detail and accuracy, thereby presenting more of the music. At age 25, my first serious system had the HUGE Magneplanar Tympani 1D which had a much bigger soundstage than anything. I was fascinated and drunk with banging my head in 110 dB blasting. That phase in my audio life lasted about 1 year as I realized I was missing a lot of clarity and real life detail/naturalness. I have been in the clarity camp for the last 41 years.
|
mrdecibel,
As I stated with my early misguided listening, I played classical music at average levels of 90 dB which had plenty of peaks at 110 dB. This was totally unnaturally loud. Thankfully I stopped doing that, or else I would be deaf by now. BELIEVE IT, instead of jumping on me again. WC objectively and accurately reports that some electronics like Rowland have higher accuracy/detail/clarity but are short on slam/soundstage, while other electronics like Constellation emphasize the slam/soundstage at the slight cost of accuracy/detail/clarity. In fact, at times he found the sound too syrupy, which got him to move on from the Lampi to Esoteric dac. Maybe the source of the syrup is not the Lampi, but the Connie. He will find out soon. Although I have not heard at home either Rowland or Connie, it is generally true that electronics emphasize one category compared to the other. Tubes are particularly noted for slam (within their comfortable power ratings, tube 100 watts may sound more powerful than SS 300 watts), but the bloated soundstage and loose bass give away the fact that tubes are not accurate but are pleasantly euphonic to some listeners. I don't know how much classical music you listen to, but live unamplified classical music is just plain detailed, and not full of slam. String, tuba, piano and organ bass do not hit you in the stomach with slam. It is particularly difficult to discern accurate pitches in low piano notes from C at 32 Hz down to A at 27 Hz, and in order to do so, accuracy is required, not boominess and slam. To distinguish these low freq sounds, it helps to have their harmonics at higher frequencies clearly presented live or accurately reproduced in audio systems.
WC, while Rowland bass may be quantitatively less than Connie bass, I suggest you listen for accurate pitches in bass notes, where you might find that Rowland delivers the accuracy of tone and pitch better. Just my speculation--tell us what you hear for all 3 ambitious systems, Merrill, Rowland, Connie.
|
WC,
Yes, Lux and Connie amps will let you play loud without fatigue, but you found it useful to evaluate amps at 85-90 dB which enables easier discrimination among amps. I found I could get all the detail AND excitement at those moderately loud levels from accurate amps. But a slightly syrupy amp like the Classe D200 when pushed louder could not reveal the snap/excitement of percussion like triangles, cymbals. I got more snap from my baby Bryston even at lower volumes. You'll see if Rowland or Merrill gives you more snap/sparkle at lower volumes than Connie at louder levels. The real shootout might be between the accuracy oriented Rowland and Merrill. Maybe mrdecibel is right that you can have everything--accuracy AND dynamics both to the highest standards--with Merrill. Perhaps the no feedback design of Merrill enables both criteria to be maximized. As Merrill says, the circuit is faster so everything moves without impediments. The review of the 116 by Dr. Michael Bump, professional classical musician and professor of percussion, suggests that you can have everything with the 116. He was informative after I asked questions, in the entry of comparative review of Veritas and 116 on the Merrill Element thread.
|
mrdecibel,
I think "slam" is a confusing term that seems to apply mainly to bass. I meant that tube amps have overall power that makes their 100 watts sound more powerful than SS amps of 100 or even 300 watts. Of course, most tube amps have deficient and loose bass. So it would be clearer to talk about power, dynamics, resolution, accuracy for bass, midrange, HF. Since these are technical terms, it would be also useful to describe how various instruments sound, since all instruments have various combinations of fundamentals and higher harmonics. |
WC,
Re-reading your 2:08 AM post, I think there is some inconsistency in your statements. First, you say Rowland + Merrill shows less obvious detail, less midrange articulation, rolled off HF (again, compared to what? Centaur + Merrill, Centaur + Virgo?). These are all consistent qualities. But then second, occasionally you hear things that were not as apparent with the Connie setup, so that implies that Rowland + Merrill are more detailed/revealing, a reversal of the first assessment. And then third, the Centaur reveals differences in preamps more easily, another reversal back to the first assessment. But then at 10:37 AM, the Connie appears to concentrate on bass, 3D, "insane" mids (is "insane" sweet and 3D or detailed/accurate or what?) rather than details. Forgive me, I am confused still.
|
WC,
Even though it is worthwhile to compare Rowland, Merrill and Connie as complete systems, it would be useful to compare preamps using the same amp. Many potential combinations, made more difficult by the warm up times which then make it difficult to remember what you heard 1-3 days before. Let's say you presently have the Connie warmed up. It is easy to keep 2 or 3 preamps plugged in and on simultaneously, so switching between preamps is easy because you just shut off the power amp for 5 min while you switch preamps. The power amp will sound the same after just 5 min of being off. During the 5 min the power amp is off, you think about what you just heard. So you use the Centaur, and report on the character of the Virgo and Merrill preamps, and soon with the Rowland Corus preamp. Then put the Centaur out to pasture, warm up and use the 925 to do the same preamp comparison. Then in July-August, use the Merrill 116 and compare all 3 preamps. Ideally, the comparison among all 3 preamps should be similar no matter which power amp you have used. Then you change gears, decide which preamp you like, and use it with different power amps. Repeat using another preamp, etc. Hopefully the conclusions you reach about all 6 pieces and 9 combinations are consistent, showing that each piece has its unique character by itself. As long as the input impedance of all power amps is more than 10x the output impedance of the preamp, there should be no incompatibility of the kind that you might get when using a tube preamp with very high output impedance and a power amp whose input impedance is less than 10x that output impedance.
With the above said, I am not sure your post of 2:08 AM is comparing 925 + Merrill Christine with Centaur + Christine, or Centaur + Virgo, or 925 + Virgo. If you establish preamps as A,B,C, and amps as X,Y,Z, then you can compare and report A+X vs A+Y vs A+Z, then B+X vs B+Y, etc. That will make understanding easier. Sorry, my 1st paragraph is a long winded version of this 2nd. That's the beauty of math compared to verbiage. |
ricred1,
Since you have a lot of experience with many Rowland power amps, can you tell us your comparisons with other brands at this level? Maybe you don't want to bias WC one way or the other, so it would be great if you told us after WC does his full evaluation by the end of Aug. I like his approach of not making judgments about what is better, but instead just telling what he objectively hears. I hope you do the same, at the appropriate time. |
ricred1,
Thanks. I replied to the longer first one.
|
mrdecibel,
Right. The object here is the enjoyment of music, not getting "slammed" in the boxing ring, etc. LOL.
|
WC,
I think ATI 523 or the more powerful bridged version, the 543 would be a better choice than the ML 533H. From your long ago comments about ML 532H, and all my experience with past ML electronics, they are euphonic and probably not as neutral and accurate as ATI. Even for the less critical applications of HT compared to stereo, it is important to have accuracy so when visual effects are accompanied by exciting transients, you don’t want to be bored with euphonic ML type sound. Clarity is important for dialogue. Your HT speakers probably have moderate impedance, so the 543 would be comfortable offering more power than the 523. For low impedance speakers, the 543 is not as comfortable as the 523, according to my conversation with an ATI tech a few years ago.
If you are already committed to the ML 533H, please do an A/B with the ATI 528 using 2 channels of each, before you dismantle the Neo system in your present room. My guess is that the ATI class D amps are a best budget buy hands down, and are not embarrassed by any amp regardless of price. Let’s see what you find, thanks.
Of course, either the ATI 523 or 543 would save you plenty of money. |
It would be nice if A-gon had a search function within a thread. Lacking that, WC discussed the Gryphon Diablo 300 about 6 months ago or so. His posts could be reviewed around then, or a separate search for this item could be done. My recollection is that he found it OK, pleasant but not very detailed.
|
WC,
The source and acoustics are the most critical components, possibly as important as the speakers. Before you dismantle the Neos in your present room, please do the testing of all preamps/amps there, since you know the acoustics well. The new room will have completely different acoustics. Until you get to know the new acoustics, it will be harder to do the A/B tests. The Esoteric promises to be the most revealing source, so it will be important to use it in all the testing in your present room. You can still enjoy your HT in the new room, and move the Neos later, after you have done the testing. And then you can repeat some of the A/B testing in the new room, to see if you arrive at the same conclusions as in your present room. Even though the Merrill 116 won't arrive and break in for another month or so, it will be worth the wait until you can hear the 116 in your present room. |
No matter what electronics you are talking about, "muscular bass" is usually associated with some loss of upper midrange and HF clarity. Despite flat freq response from 20-20,000 Hz, it is a difference of perceived emphasis, with tonal balance of muscular amps leaning towards bass, and less muscular amps leaning towards HF, yielding more clarity, detail. So the Rowland preamp and amp have the same characteristics, singly or in combination. Same goes for Constellation. This difference is not likely to change with the Esoteric K1 or cables, although both the Rowland and Connie will probably sound tighter and more revealing in the entire freq range than they did with the Lampi or Oppo.
|
mrdecibel,
I think WC is referring to the Gryphon Diablo 300, which should answer the question posed by someone on the previous page.
|
WC,
Your wife continues to show that she has good ears. BTW, you can get the Audio CD from Digital Recordings to test hearing thresholds in 1 dB increments from 0 to 80 dB at 32 freq between 20 and 20 kHz. You need a good set of headphones and a headphone jack with volume control for this test. I can almost guarantee that her ears will measure better than yours. Females have better hearing than males, and she hasn't been exposed to as much very loud sound as you which causes hearing damage. Since you are about half my age, your hearing likely tests better than mine.
Perhaps the Merrill Christine + 116 will give the best of everything, but my experience with many amps is that more detailed amps are associated with less quantity of bass, although more accurate, tighter bass. So far, you have found that the Connie has more quantity of bass than Rowland, but which amp delivers more accurate, tighter bass? Regarding spatiality/holography, tubes are king, but we know that tubes are less detailed/accurate. Relative to the Rowland, Connie is tube-like in midrange/HF. At present, you seem to value spatiality and tube-like quality above detail/clarity. However, you may be transitioning to the detail camp, since you were not happy with the Lampi/Connie system which sounded a little syrupy. This caused you to move on from Lampi to Esoteric. As you know, I had an early romance affair with tubes and spatiality which only lasted a year. Since the Rowland system is sweet and smooth with clarity/detail, you would have just about everything in music that is important, and you could live happily with that for a very long time. Let's see how the Merrill rates.
|
Mrdecibel,
Perhaps my experience is not as vast as yours, but I'll give a few examples. Comparing the Bryston 3B SST to my Bryston 2.5B SST2 for moderate volume music within the comfortable range of the 2.5, the 3 had much more bass emphasis but much less detail in midrange/HF. It was sickeningly dark and veiled by comparison. The Bryston 4B SST2 was much better than the 3B SST, due to the updated SST2 design and NOT the increased power. Unfortunately, I had the same findings that although the 4B had more fullness and bass, it was deficient in detail/clarity in midrange/HF compared to the 2.5B SST2.
Although analogies are often faulty, a few police officer patients of mine have told me that fat men are slow in their fighting ability, and they lose the battle due to fatigue. Many people have found low power amps to have more purity/detail than higher power amps. This is one reason they choose efficient horn speakers with their low powered (tube) amps, although I would choose an accurate low powered SS amp with horns.
|
WC,
"More bass has been added", but is it also tighter and more accurate? Same question for 925 vs Centaur. My guess is that the Odin does both, so is a win-win, but the Centaur gives more quantity than the 925, but maybe less quality of tightness and accuracy. Only you can answer that for sure.
|
pokey77--if you had 1000 words of useful audio comments, I would welcome it, instead of calling it thread choke. |
Jay,
Your skillful financial management parallels good investing in lots of other areas.
|
WC,
It could be that the Rowland preamp is still breaking in, especially with the PSU needing time to break in, as Guido says. Also, the Esoteric is more revealing than the Lampi, which helps to better differentiate all the electronics. The Rowland's "incredible amount of air between instruments, lots of clarity and dynamics" is the ideal combination of everything desirable, and is more true to life than big inflated images with artificial holography of Constellation or similar setups. No rush to make decisions before you try the Merrills. Looking forward to the DCS Vivaldi vs Esoteric K1--WOW! |
WC,
It appears that the Colosseum is gone, so it is unfortunate that you never did a video A/B with the Merrill. Please give us your verbal ratings of the Merrill before you move on to other things. I want to calibrate my rating of Merrill with yours, so I can extrapolate your findings on other amps to see if I should consider them. Thanks.
Maggies and other inefficient speakers obviously need lots power for very dynamic music. But at 80 dB, sensible levels with brief 90-100 dB peaks on things like "Keith don't go", 1 to 100 watts (at most) will drive Maggies to satisfactory, natural levels, with better clarity than any dynamic speaker. You'll see about the new Alexia 2. I agree about the limitations of Maggies for very dynamic music. Even the efficient older GTA I heard is better in all respects to any Maggie I have heard, and the newest GTA I will hear soon promises to be even better.
|
WC,
Although you know I haven't heard the Constellations, I am just going by your own statements that Rowland reveals more detail but has smaller size of images than Constellation. Tubes have the biggest images, but are less accurate and detailed, according to both of our experiences. The Connie has some degree of this aspect of tubes. I don't want to leave the impression that I think Connies are bad, just say that compared to the Rowland they are less true to life. Also, I don't know exactly what you mean by holography, but the common usage of this word is that its spatiality is artificial like 2D cutouts pasted at various locations, like the artificial 3D in movies. The movie 3D is perhaps better than regular movies, but it isn't quite real. But what truly is lifelike is what you said about the Rowland, having "incredible amount of air between instruments...." In real life, images are separated and specific, not artificially inflated, which actually DECREASES the space and separation between sound sources. To make an analogy, think of a 20 foot bench. 8 slender people will be able to sit with plenty of space between each of them, but 8 fat people will sit with less space between each of them.
Also, what you just said about the Rowland having a more upfront sound than the Connie, is further illustration that it is more detailed, and that it has more HF information than Connie. The remarkable thing is that the Rowland is still liquid, smooth and sweet, combined with better clarity than Connie. If the HF are not grossly "in your face" but are more naturally detailed, that is a wonderful endorsement of the Rowland as the way to go. Just keep the volume sensibly loud to soft, so you can enjoy more details and beauty of the music through the Rowland. |
jafox,
My past experience with phono step-up transformers is that it is necessary to match the impedance of the cartridge with the gain of the transformer. More precisely, the turns ratio of the input and output of the transformer, in relation to the cartridge impedance, I forgot the exact formula. If you use a different gain, or turns ratio, then HF are rolled off. I stopped using transformers when I got a high gain phono preamp stage for my low output MC cartridge.
|
pokey77,
If you want the Constellation sound and can't afford the Virgo/Centaur, the cheapest Inspiration line probably gives the approximate sound quality. This is what WC heard with a ML stat at Axpona in April, which impressed him. As I said before, the tech at Constellation told me that the basic circuitry of the Inspiration is the same as the bigger models. The building block of all models is the same 125 W module. Also, Irv Gross, the sales guy at Connie, told John Atkinson that the major difference between the Inspiration and the bigger models is power and physical weight. The Inspiration stereo at retail of $11K is often discounted by Audio Advisor. It is no slouch at 200W into 8, 400W into 4.
|
WC,
True, about the speakers determining need for a preamp. Mrdecibel's efficient Klipsch horns are plenty dynamic, so he doesn't need the additional gain and enjoys the better purity of his passive volume controller. In my case with my inefficient stats, I have enough gain without preamp for my music, so I enjoy the extra clarity without the preamp. I did try preamps, even if not at the level of yours. Although I briefly enjoyed the extra dynamics and volume, the clarity suffered to the point where that became the priority as I got rid of the preamp.
|
WC,
Cheer up. The real SOTA shoot out will be Rowland vs Merrill, so you will be able to do that side by side, with SOTA sources like DCS and Esoteric. The show is getting better and better. I am following Mike Mivera, who has the new Purifi class D module from Bruno Putzeys, and is mating it to his custom input buffer stages. This may be SOTA for an el cheapo price, but it will take at least another 6 months to find out. Your review of the Merrill vs Rowland will set a benchmark standard for all comparisons.
|
viber7,
I enjoyed your post. We actually have similar audio preferences and experiences, and of course, musical preferences. Thanks for all the detailed info you provided. Sorry to repeat myself, but I have found large panels to sound bloated with less precision than smaller versions of the same. For example, the Stax F83 was 2 stacked F81's. Of course, the F83 had more output than the badly inefficient F81, but the F83 was more bloated and rolled off in HF. Similar to you, I went from the huge Magneplanar Tympani 1D to the tiny Rogers LS 3/5a and loved the focus and good detail of the Rogers. I haven't heard the huge Alsyvox Caravaggio's, but I predict the smallest Tintoretto will sound better, when I hear it in a NY dealer in a month. The Caravaggio reminds me of my Tympani, but the essence of the design's clarity will be obtained from the Tintoretto. The drivers are of good moderate size, which should present a realistic image suitable for most music. I also want to hear the small Persona B, which uses all Be drivers, a real plus. They won't present big orchestra pieces like Mahler realistically, but the clarity may let you forget about size and concentrate on the detail and accuracy of the complex music presented.
I am looking forward to your evaluation of the Merrill preamp and 114 amp. Thanks so much.
|
WC,
You are right about how blind shootouts eliminate bias. Just include all 4 amps. If you don’t have the time in making such a long video, just do the blind A/B of Gryphon/Merrill. There have been plenty of videos on the others, even if they were not blinded.
On the other hand, you have implied that although the Gryphon is the best, it doesn’t blow away the Sim and maybe others. That’s why you downgraded the Gryphon for value. If it blew everything away, you would rank it high for value as well. In fact, I admitted to being confused when I thought the Dag on the fabulous Artesania stand had better clarity than the Gryphon without the stand, possibly because of the congested recording that was used. There is the risk of fatigue trying to listen to all 4 amps with several recordings, unless you decide to just use the "Keith don’t go" recording with all 4 amps. I get all the info I need by listening to the first 90-120 seconds of that.
No, I don't hear anything wrong with the ARC ref 6se. I even liked the JC1+ with it, as a total system. The ARC contributed excellent clarity as it is now. Still, whether the next A/B uses the Momentum HD, Merrill Christine or DCS direct, the blind A/B should be informative. |
mrdecibel,
I laughed because at first I thought you said, "your money or your life."
|
No more pot, just a brief mention that mercury causes neurological damage which affects hearing, very relevant. The damage can take many years to occur, similar to loud volumes, obviously relevant here.
Mrdecibel always has valued input, and most of it relevant.
|
WC,
I remember that in the past you thought the ML 532H had great mids and suave but a little subdued highs. The current brightness may be just the cold start, or the much more revealing preamp/dac that you have now may be telling the truth. As viber7 implied, a soft preamp (like your previous ARC ref 10) may make the whole system sound soft no matter what else is in the chain. If the ML 533H needs warmup and break in, you will know over time.
|
ricevs,
Thanks. I suppose audiophile fuses and power cords make the greatest difference since they are both in the signal path. Which fuses do you recommend and where to get them? Do fuses have their individual sound so you have to A/B various contenders? I know there is a fuse thread but your summary would be helpful. Thanks.
|
vinny55,
I believe you are partly correct about tone controls, especially my EQ which helps tremendously with a lot of things. Still, there are benefits I have gotten from power chords, speaker wire and interconnect cables that I can't quite get from EQ alone. I like to do everything, which all contribute to the desired sound. And we all agree that the room is very important. Some people here think that various room correction software can do the obvious. This includes bass EQ, but I extend that to the entire freq range, carefully done by listening. As WC has said, deniers don't know what they are missing.
|
viber7 and geoffkait,
I am not sure how relevant is the videography analogy. Certainly if you are shaking when shooting, the picture is blurred. The shaking is in the same geometric domain as the picture taken. But vibration in the physical domain is in a different domain that the electrical domain of the electronics. I have difficulty understanding how very small physical vibrations can influence electrical behavior, although I have experience with large movements of my hand holding an electrical meter seeing large differences in the meter reading. I also understand the influence of electric fields on magnetic fields and vice-versa as in Faraday's law, I recall. I wonder whether these low level effects from isolation footers/springs are quantifiable, although I am open to accepting the claims made by people that these things are audible.
|
axememan,
The easiest thing to do would be to look back a few months, where WC nicely summarized his top amps/preamps at various price points, in a single post.
|
thezaks,
I agree that a dedicated preamp is probably better than the preamp section of a DAC. I recently posted that WC had the Esoteric DAC, which I think required an external preamp. That's the type of design I like--let the dedicated D/A directly output into a dedicated preamp, otherwise you have the absurdity of 2 tandem preamps. Since the DCS probably does the D/A better than the Esoteric, imagine the ultimate for clarity--such as dedicated DCS D/A without the extra preamp stage, going into the dedicated preamp. Somehow the Esoteric did everything WC liked at the time, including dynamics, but the DCS D/A is even better. We don't know how much better a DCS without its preamp stage might be than the present DCS with its preamp stage.
|
