@Viber,
You couldn't be more correct. Elevated and from just in front of the orchestra is absolutely the best sound. Now if only I could find a seat that fit that description...
|
That was a trip!
Merry Christmas all. Safe travels and visits with relatives and friends!
|
Hey Jay,
Awesome report on the Furutech outlets... I don't know what else you installed with them, but... After 15 months due to move and renovation, I finally got my 7.1 surround system working last week and despite a less good room, the surround sound portion of my system has been greatly elevated... The only differences... the isolated exterior grounding rod, the Furutech GTX wall frames and the Furutech 106D NCF carbon fiber cover plates. No way for me to reasonably do before/after, but I now feel confident in recommending these "add ons" to your outlets. I can't explain it, but they just seem to work!
|
|
viber6,
It really takes an expert to properly explain resolution and bit depth, hopefully there is someone qualified on this string that can more accurately explain why your rational is incorrect if I get it wrong. But in my limited understanding I will try and partially explain. For the record, you have already stated that you "do not understand one solution (Leedh) the problem of loss of bits at low levels." And that you "don't see how any digital volume control is better than analog at even moderate levels." So, I would appreciate it if you don't criticize my admittedly partial explanation of this issue with your limited understanding. I will happily stand corrected from an expert for any mistakes that I make in my calculations...
One problem is that your rational does not allow for upsampling.
It is quite easy to convert a 16 bit depth resolution to a 24 bit depth. This involves only simple multiplication. It is true that the first increase in bit depth does not in any way increase resolution... at that level. At full output the analogue conversion redbook standard is +/- 2 volts so 65,536 digitally represents 2 volts at 16 bit and 16,777,216 represents 2 volts at 24 bit. They are equal. When the conversion from D to A occurs, both result in exactly the same instantaneous voltage level, without any complex DSP applied. To make this conversion, you merely multiply every sample by 256. No loss or gain occurs, only a difference in numeration.
But since bits are relegated to either 1 or 0, you can't divide them. What the increase in bit depth allows is for division to occur without loss. You can then very accurately lower the volume significantly while maintaining excellent resolution. 16 bit resolution gives 65,536 levels at 2 volts, 24 bit resolution gives 16,777,216 levels at 2 volts. You can then mathematically lower this amplitude by 256 times while still maintaining a higher bit depth than maximum redbook level of 16 bits which is actually only used at 100% output (effectively never). Algorithms can deal quite well with any rounding errors as you reduce volumes i.e halving the volume with a digital number that is odd. This results in a potential maximum error of 1/16,777,216 of 2 volts error... significantly below the threshold of hearing.
It is true, that the information available does not increase resolution at the full level in the upsampling, but what it does is then allow volume adjustment with more increments without rounding errors. I.e. digital level 4000 in 16 bits (.122 volts output) becomes level 1,024,000 in 24 bits (also .122 volts output). You can then reduce the volume 250 times for an lowered volume value of .000488 volt output level volts with a digital level of level of 4,096. So, 1/250 of the output while resolution is still effectively higher than with what you started (4000 increments below vs 4,096 levels below but at 1/250 of the volume.
Digital editing has been utilizing these mathematical formulas for decades. In studios, every track is recorded for a maximum resolution then during mixing lowered to an appropriate level. So when implemented properly, it is actually far easier to digitally reduce volume with minimal sonic impact than it is to do it in the analogue realm. If this type of dsp were not readily possible, quality digital mixing would be nearly impossible and while some might argue that digital anything is inferior to all analogue, there are other threads for that discussion as Jay only works in digital. While you can accurately argue that information is still lost in this math, the information level lost is far lower than the base threshold set by redbook 16 bit depth.
In summary, the theoretical number of volume levels available through high bit depth digital is far higher than with what can be reasonably achieved in the analogue realm. Perhaps not at 16 bit, but certainly at 24 bit. Once the volume adjustment has been achieved, you can then reduce the bit depth back to 16 bits if the DAC can't handle the higher bit depth but all high end DACs I am aware of, built in the last 30 years can handle these higher bit depths if not even more at 32 bits.
I hope this satisfactorily answers your "question".
|
Clearly you didn’t read what I wrote or you can’t or won’t allow yourself to understand. I will try and make it simple for you 1/1 = 1. And 1/1 x 256/256= 1. So if you multiply every value by 256 and still keep the voltage equivalent of 1 the same as the new 256 then you have not changed anything at the current output value. They are identical in output. You have not changed the resolution at that value even though one is at 16 bit and the other is at 24 bit. do you follow?
But…! Because a 1 in binary is not divisible by anything you can only go from 1 to 0 which is not a volume control, it is an on/off switch. In other words, you cannot express a fraction of 1 bit in binary code. But once you multiply the 1 by 256 while maintaining their equivalent associated voltage you can now divide what was previously on/off into 256 discreet levels, each of which has a value of 1/256 of the voltage so now instead of an on/off switch represented by a 1 or a 0, you now have a volume control with 256 discreet levels. This is accomplished with absolutely no DSP except for multiplying every value on the recording by 256 and the programming the DAC to know that the maximum value of all 16 bits being 1’s is 2 volts as well as all 24 bits being 1’s is 2 volts in 24 bits.
Your only limitations are whether or not the DAC has the software to do this simple conversion and whether the device has the capability of reproducing the smaller graduations of a 24 bit signal. The other limitation is a simple algorithm for dealing with rounding error. One example of an algorithm would be if remainder is .5 and below, it is represented by a 0 and if it is greater than .5 it is a one, but this rounding error is only in the last digit so the potential error is 1/512 of 16million… a very small error. It would be a bit silly to design a 24 bit DAC that couldn’t accurately accomplish this. Because why would someone design a 24 bit DAC that couldn’t output the signal from a 24 bit DAC,.. there are other reasons why higher bit depth and up sampling are beneficial, but they are not important to the question of lossless, effective volume control.
so in summary, you can design a very effective lossless digital volume control by increasing the bit depth (upscaling) of a 16 bit record to a 24 bit signal.
|
I hesitate to weigh in on the CM blind test as I was listening through an iPad that predates the iPad Pro so I wouldn't trust the situation on a bet where the wager was to take out the garbage can to the curb... but I agree completely with ron17. To his description, I would add that first setup sounded more natural. Second presentation lost a little "life".
That I felt like I could hear a difference on a recording through the internet replayed over an ipad leads me to the question of whether I should book a padded room in a local, "special", hospital! |
Never left, just been lurking in the corner! |
Oh, and in case you forgot, @viber6 had the conviction to submit his beloved Rouge Class D amp to a challenge and only lost by 60-40 (approximate, I don’t remember the exact numbers).
I’m sure everyone could have a great deal of fun with this informative competition. Think of how much free advertising you would get with winning! I bet many of us would send our “veiled” systems for you to upgrade after a decisive win (maybe even a tie)!
Also, think about how much free advertising you would get from losing…. As a famous co-Floridian of Jay’s once said…. “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”
|
Glad I didn't post last night because after listening again this morning I completely erased what I wrote yesterday!
Firstly, ditto @grey9hound. Secondly, I would add that presentation 1 sounds more "artistic" while presentation 2 sounds more "clinical/surgical/precise". Both are great and I probably could live happily with either.
Presentation 1 sounds much closer to the original source material played on my system which is Classe Audio. I suspect that my system is a darker, warmer, more "tubey" presentation than neutral, so even though 1 sounds closer to my solid state system, my guess is 1 is VAC and 2 is Soulution/Gryphon. Ironically, I suspect that I would really, really love the preamp on 1 playing through the amp on 2. I have always loved Audio Research paired up with a super solid state amplifier and I feel like that is what the preamp 1 w. amp 2 would be...
Regarding bass and impact. Both recordings are significantly lacking in these areas compared to source material on my system. I have not found this to be indicative of high end Focal speakers I have heard in the past nor do I suspect it is reflective of the front end capabilities. I wonder if the Focal's are not quite done breaking in yet or if this is just a limitation of Jay's recording capabilities/YouTube... Again, this diminishment is in both presentations so in no way do I think it is reflective of pre-amp/amp capabilities.
And in the clear category of "cover my ass"... I could easily see a world where solid state is 1 and tube is 2, but it would mean that one or the other... or both! are seriously violating stereotypes! At this point, I would trade everything I own for either... except perhaps the speakers... My gut is that they are not finished completely done breaking in yet....
|
My plot has also thickened.... ! I just made a discovery after discussing my results with another reader of the thread and some odd "artifacts" on both presentations that I just couldn't understand...!
I was using my Apple TV to play the YouTube videos into my Classe Sigma SSP. I didn't think to consider that about the only thing I use the Apple TV for on this system is for watching Netflix so I had the internals set for 7.1 speaker system with Dolby Digital Matrix that converts a 5.1 signal into a 7.1... All well and good,... except that it also converts a 2 channel YouTube signal into a matrixed 7.1! Not good when you're listening to stereo music!
This changed many aspects of the sound. I still prefer presentation 1 to 2 but I fear that my evaluation needs to be completely redone and unfortunately I have listened to this all around 10 times so I need to "unlearn" everything, cleanse my ears from the nasty conversion and start from scratch... I will say, it is bizarre how the sound changed from conversion to straight stereo... More to follow!
|
I'm working up to writing up my "non-matrixed" findings, but not quite ready.
Jay, Can you confirm the recording is Sara K: All Your Love (Turns Into Passion) from the Water Falls record 2002 44.1 16 bit or is it a different version/master?
Thanks
|
Holy crap, a lot of activity over the past 3 days! Hats off to Jay for giving us something really compelling to dig into! I have been so busy I have only skimmed the posts since mid week and just now had a chance to listen to third video.
Here is the best I got. I think Ron really hit nail on head with his summary that at this level of gear that more the defining factor of which system is preferable has more to do with recording than with tube vs. solid state.
I have almost no confidence that I know which is which. Or even from video to video…. I can guess but it is nothing more than a gut feeling guess. On video 1 and 3 I hear something that doesn’t sound quite right on presentation 2 and presentation 1 respectively. On video 2, I think I hear that same characteristic but it makes the recording sound better to me…. But I am splitting atoms at this point. Kren, I agree both sound great.
But my final choice of preferences is:
video 1, presentation 1
video 2, presentation 2
video 3, presentation 2
The only thing I might bet money on is that I am NOT consistent in which system I preferred, nor even that I am consistently able to determine which system is which (without even going the extra step of saying tube or SS)!
Finally, I think that by far the single most limiting factor in this is the miking/YouTube limitations. Comparing the source material to the YouTube presentations reveals just how inferior this test is and I would not be surprised if were hearing the recordings at Jay’s would likely result in both more consistency as well as an ability to clearly discern which is which. But talking out of both sides of my mouth, I still would not be the least surprised if the answer to the question of “Which do you prefer?” Is,… It depends. Different music, different mood, different recording, different relative humidity (lol) may yield a different preference. I still would most like to hear the VAC preamp with the Gryphon Mephistos at Jay’s with a glass of French Pinot Noir at my lips. I think that could just be magic!
Jay, thanks for a super fun trial in the dead of winter. Kudos galore to you!
******
Quick note: I noticed that Jay just posted the results while I was typing my review. I just wanted to state for the record that I posted this before watching the video (in fact I still haven't watched!). So no cheating on my part! whether it makes me look better or worse!!! lol
|
Just plain fantastic! Perhaps you will hold onto this system and use as a reference? Would be a worthy system!
|
Sorry I have not had opportunity to compare. Mine is Valhalla Ittok with some other minor upgrades but have no doubt Lingo and other options vastly improve on an already good design. I did audition a Clearaudio Hana red setup in my system at around $12k and it obliterated the Linn but I have a relatively inexpensive Benz silver cartridge so it was not a fair fight. I spend over 95% time with digital-mostly due to convenience- so I’m not looking to sink major bucks on the TT now. I have plans that would ultimately make sense to invest in vinyl in the future, in which case I will need to seriously audition upgrades and/or replacement.
|
@ron17 + 1,000,000!
Happy Birthday Jay!
Thanks for taking us on a journey many of us would have loved to take on our own but didn't have the funds, patience, dedication and thick skin!
Have a great day and a great next year!
PS... I think it must be a full moon again this week...
|
I bet this promise is almost as good as Sony's in 1982: Compact Discs--"Perfect sound forever"... |
Jay,
It has been a great journey--Cheers to that! Good luck and best of successes on your new ventures. I hope they exceed your wildest imagination. You deserve it!
See you soon.
Best,
Paul
|
I couldn’t agree with petland more strongly. I believe that 1 and 2 setups are the same in both videos with 1 being Rouge and 2 being mystery amp. I was listening using Empire Ears Legend X custom molded items through my iMac desktop.
This being said, I listened to both full resolution tracks on my real system and the differences laid bare the difficulties that Jay is facing either from his recording setup, the limitations of YouTube, or—most likely—both. All 4 recordings via YouTube sound as if someone had placed a heavy blanket over the speakers for recording. Differences were far more dramatic and detrimental than a high loss, compression .mp3 vs cd. Additionally, the tonality is completely changed.
It is a testament of how much care Jay is exercising that the differences between amps are still readily apparent. I believe that some prefer 1’s over 2’s simply because the amps limitations actually give a false sense of detail and the more natural and refined capabilities of both 2’s mask the layers of detail, 3 dimensionality and high quality that are readily apparent when listening to the full resolution tracks directly on a somewhat modest system compared to what Jay is using. I would love to hear the comparison in person.
Anyone trying to make purchasing decision based on these YouTube’s is chasing after a fools errand. But the exercise was still meaningful… that the differences are still audible even under these challenging circumstances is a testament of just how important the role the amplifier plays and most importantly how worthy Jays years long quest remains. Keep up the great work, Jay. And keep having fun along the way! I also wish I could afford the fantastic equipment you are able to bring into your “lab”. |
I begin this longwinded post (Ron, you can just ignore it!) by addressing a presumption that brightness equates with detail. This is a false equivalency. What artificially high brightness sometimes does is make the details more apparent, it does not create them. The 3rd track appears to be in same order as both 1 and 2. Amp 2 is both less bright and more detailed. I can hear through some of the “mud” that veils the YT presentations. I can hear far more detail in 2 than in 1. I can hear more distortion in 1 than 2. Unfortunately, the darkness of the YT presentations masks much of the depth of beauty in presentation 2. With the addition of the Liberty track I would like to point out that there is a certain disassociation from the "attack" to the "body"--perhaps resonance--of instruments. This can be heard with: the impact of the hammers on the Rhodes' tines, the mallets on the drums and the rosin layden bow with the cello. A common problem with class D amplifiers is this disassociation. On presentation 1, it is hard to hear whether it is a Rhodes or a synth version of a Rhodes. This disassociation is why, on preliminary listens, class D often sounds more detailed and crisp than excellent traditional amplifier designs. Note that this disassociation can also be a challenge between excellent class A and class AB amplifiers, although the effect is much more subtle. This artificial detail is also why listener fatigue is generally a byproduct of these amplifiers. Listening to the source material of all 3 tracks, bypassing the secondary recording and inferior transmission via YT can make the differences between YT presentations more clear. Among other points, that the source presentation reveals the fullness of the details that are buried deeply within presentation 2 are far more accurate and representative of all 3 recordings. FI my system is Classe CA-2300, Classe Sigma SSP, ProAc Response 5, Innuos ZenMini with external power supply and full Nordost Valhalla loom… a relatively modest system. I will go out on a limb and state my conclusions from this exercise: 1. Through listening—even utilizing a handicapped medium (YT) and recording chain (a microphone recording of a reproduction of source material)—differences between an inexpensive and a very expensive amplifier on a suitably revealing system can clearly be discerned. 2. Presentations 1, 2 and 3 of all tracks are the same relative amplifiers and that those amplifiers are 1–Rouge and 2–mystery high end amp(s). I find 1 to be less detailed, less natural sounding, less 3 dimensional, less defined, less authoritative bass and generally inferior and exhibiting a degree of disassociation between attack and resonance.
These are exactly the characteristics that one might expect when comparing a $2K Class D amplifier with nearly any well designed and executed high end class A or AB amplifier. Note: this does not invalidate the Rouge as a good amplifier at it's pricepoint. It could be a good 2K amplifier but compared to an amp costing 20, 30 or even 50x, it is objectively inferior. Whether the difference is worth the money is a highly personal decision and would certainly differ for any individual. In truth, my wife would suggest that 2K is way to much to spend on any amplifier, let alone… 3. For me this exercise lends credence to the statements: “you get what you pay for” and “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” and even “the law of diminishing returns applies”—The Rouge is not bad and I have no idea how it compares to other similarly priced amps, but it is reasonable to expect that to get much better performance you might have to pay a lot more money. This exercise illustrates that painful reality. Perhaps, someday, there will be technological advances that allow an inexpensive design to truly outperform a current, expensive design. In 35 years of searching, I have yet to experience this panacea although I think the gap has closed a bit. |
Nice summary Jay. The most amazing aspect of this exercise is just how much of that low level detail differentiation between the two amps came through the YouTube.
Now I'm looking forward to you getting back to reviewing the equipment that I will never be able to afford! I would love to hear your opinions of a Boulder vs Solution vs CHPrecision competition!!!
BTW... My money is on mystery amps being the Blocks! I have not clues to suggest I'm correct on this... Just going on a hunch! |
Heck, I don't even want to see the Yankees play the Mets!
Ali vs. Frazier all the way! Lamborghini vs McLarin!... lol |
I fail to see how anything you have written makes my assertion incorrect that brightness is independent from and does not equate with detail. How is what I have said false? |
@kren0006, You said it far better than I... and in fewer words. 100% agreement, even on the final not ripping of the Rogue.
If I was buying a new, full price amp, at $1700, I would probably have to consider it. That being said, I would also consider a number of used $4K-$8K pre-owned amps. At this point, law of diminishing returns is far less punitive than at Jay's stratospheric level. Simaudio, Classe (but not the Sigma class D line!), BAT, and many others. all have class AB amps that could be purchased for similar money that I expect would sound far better than a full price, new $1700 amp. A lucky person might even be able to find a vintage class A amp in this price range if you don't mind the "space heater".
Nothing against Rouge, you can only just assemble so much quality for at most $250 in parts cost compared with well over $1000. (I'm applying a theory that for ever $1 in parts cost, it reflects a $5 increase in retail sales cost... not sure this is exactly correct, but I think it's close). |
Viber, I have written a detailed response and resume, but I'm not sure if I want to send it privately, publicly, or not at all. At this time, I will share my concluding thoughts... and thank you kren for your words. I agree with them... ********** I chose to participate openly in this challenge because I found it be an opportunity to share my listening experiences while blind. I had no trouble picking out the different scenarios and like many on this thread that I respect, nearly all of us preferred the class A and not by small margins. That you also were able to identify each is not a surprise. That you found what most of us strongly preferred as less preferable to the Rouge was even less of a surprise. My experiences of the different presentations matched with Jay's in-person experiences. I appreciate that no-one has been slamming you or the Rouge, as someone stated, it was not a fair fight. And I hope that I am presenting myself as having a certain different perspective and not attacking yours. I only ask you to contemplate one fact as you share your considerable insights and thoughts on this and in future posts:
You preferred the presentation that by a margin of 50% most of us did not.
|
I found that my PSAudio Power Plant was overall, slightly detrimental, especially to my amplifier. Shedding it for a passive system focused on cleaning up the grounding path really ended up opening the sound up and lowering noise floor without the downsides of the conditioner. Will be interesting if WC reaches a similar conclusion. |
At this time I have 2 dedicated 20 amp circuits wired with larger than required (10) gauge wire each with an isolated ground that goes to a separate grounding stake independent from the rest of my house. The wire is standard grade (Home Depot) as I didn’t have the funds to try some of the audiophile in wall wiring brands. The outlets are Audience Hidden Treasure with Furutech GT’s wall plates and carbon fiber outlet covers. Nordost Valhalla pc s connect Nordost QBase 8 (original) with 2 QV2 and 1 QK1 ac enhancers. Pre/pro and amp are each powered with Valhalla and my external Keces power supply for the Innuos server is Frey2. To date, I have not been able to acquire a QKore ground unit but that will be a future purchase. All components are on various sort kones.
I recently moved and did all of the inwall changes at one time so I can’t vouch for independent incremental differences, however a few weeks ago I replaced a Nordost Brama for the third Valhalla and the result was just stunning. At my prior home I had dual 20 amp lines with isolated grounds but sharing the same central grounding rod and hospital grade outlets. The PS Audio, definitely was not up to powering the system with the amp but even just conditioning the low power devices left the sound constrained compared to the QBase w ac enhancers and lower end Nordost pc’s.
With system currently, the images are more defined. Bass is significantly extended but yet better controlled. Noise floor is noticeably lowered and instruments have a more natural, harmonically complex tonal quality. Unfortunately, during the move I was without my full system for 6 months and my new room setup is inferior to before. But with substituting only a Nucleus + for the Innuos Zen mini and the in wall improvements the sound was vastly improved. The substitution of the final Valhalla is what took everything over the edge. It was as if I doubled the cost of all of the components in my system. Before it was very good, now it is significantly better.
I kept the power plant for nearly a year before selling it. About 9 months in, I put it back in the wall and incorporated a variety of the Nordost products as well. In all cases the sound was comparatively constrained. Everything a bit flaccid and far less exciting. Once I removed it, the impact was immediate and obvious. Note that PS Audio versus everything plugged straight into wall yielded some improvements in clarity but lost dynamics so the it was a trade off with overall small improvement. The current setup is significantly better and I do not hear any downsides. This journey has spanned around 3-4 years minus the 6 months.
|
I just realized that I failed to identify that the model Power Plant I had was at the time the largest in the series, P10; good for 1200 VA continuous and 1500 VA intermittent so this unit in no way should have been underpowered for my system, especially with amplifiers plugged into wall, not P10. |
Also, participated in a really interesting test last evening: A server was placed on a Critical Mass Base with their Center stage footers. System was sounding very good and detailed but all sound was emanating from between speakers. Soundstage was deep and sounded detailed.
Removed all Critical Mass and replaced with just SortKones (TC). Mind you this was only under the server…. The speakers just disappeared, the sound became both warmer, more lifelike and detailed. After 30 minutes of listening we both determined that the Critical Mass has somehow sucking some of the life out of the sound.
I have been a fan of critical mass though I don’t personally own it. I know you have written of similar experiences with it in “The Lab”. But it was just stunning to hear the difference. Clearly, it has capability of doing some good things, but equally clearly… it is important to be really careful with it.
|
Which QKore did you order? The 1, 3 or dual 3 (6) version? I’m really curious to see how incremental the improvements are with it after QBase, Pre/amp, DAC, then amp(s). Hope you can take us on that journey! |
Important detail: The Critical Mass was fully broken in and had been installed over a week earlier so it was already settled before the test.
|
Congrats on 5 years!
re footers. I can only say I have experimented with a variety of points/spikes and absorption systems over many years. I have found the Nordost SortKones to be particularly effective. I have around 15 of them; AS, BC and 1 set of TC. I would recommend skipping AS (I think they are now upgraded to AC-ceramic bearings) and I wish I could afford more TC. I use them under every component of my system, including power supplies and even the QBase. I have found that they contribute to varying degrees. They do not add anything, they just seem to focus and give more clarity and allow more detail through. My only analogy is cleaning a dusty window. Of course, if the view is crappy… well they don’t help! I have also heard stillpoints and they have been great, but way out of my price point. Just a slight encouragement from me. |
With those high notes, I’d like to add that I think the Vac/mystery amp with Tainted Love is one of the best sounding posts you have made! |
@zprr + 1
We may not all always agree with WC's methodologies, decision process or even all of his conclusions. But... we should all agree that WC is doing the best job he can, is working his butt off and is providing a unique perspective. Anyone looking to be derisive towards him in any way should just stay away. WC, thanks for your hard work. We do appreciate it! |
WC,
Remembering visiting the Von Schweikert room with you which I named as top 3 at Axpona 2019... anything less than spectacular with this new reveal and I will be surprised! It will be interesting if the emotion is conveyed through the Wilsons like it was the VS. My bet... yes it will! Any takers? |
@ron17+1;
I have been trying my best not to verbally attack Viber6 since I was quite harsh against him several years ago. Buttressed by what was clearly revealed in the Rouge shootout where his choice sided with the clear minority, his preferences are not in concert with the vast majority of followers of this thread. To his credit, this was conscious, reasoned choice. Analogizing, it is as if the orchestra is playing Beethoven's Symphony # 9 in D-, as written and he unilaterally decides to transcribe it to B-... and then complains that everyone else is playing it incorrectly. WC is the conductor of this symphonic masterpiece! lol
I encourage @ricevs to "sanitize" his post i.e. eliminate the "attacking" sentence(s) and then repost the rest as it does represent a fair criticism and critique that many, including myself have levied against Viber6 and generally agree with. |
@viber6,
Correcting your assertion…. 57% vs 43% is a landslide. 30% more. But that is not really the true result… I was just summarizing. The full results are far more revealing and detrimental to your position.
presentation 1: 45%-55%. (The least obvious of the 3) 20% more.
presentation 2: 41%-59%. 45% more
presentation 3: (and easily the clearest to hear due to the more revealing Soulution preamplifier:…. 37%-63%. 70% more.
A gargantuan difference and statistically significant by nearly any measure.
The difference between the Rouge and mystery amp were not “fairly small”. They were so large that many of us—including you—had no trouble not only identifying differences but rather confidently labeling the two on multiple blind AB trials via a highly and lossy compressed YouTube video recorded with an iPhone and stereo microphone. A reasonable expectation would be that if they were “fairly close” we wouldn’t be able to identify them.
Addressing what is more likely the main reason your preferences are tilted so far away from the norm (accepting that you do have some knowledge, some experience and some skill): It seems likely that in your age, you have lost much more of your hearing above a few thousand hz than you realize. An expected result of both age and spending much of your life sitting in the middle of an orchestra and having your instrument’s sound hole 6 inches from your ear.
Until you have designed and successfully sold a line of audiophile equipment or world class instruments or been the keynote speaker at an audio or recording conference or been otherwise publicly recognized—contrary to your own opinion—you are not an expert in this field. You are an hobbyist with some experiences and a point of view. That’s it…. Just like most of us.
I studied cello with 2nd chair in Pittsburgh symphony. I studied classical guitar in college. I have been the manager of an actively touring and recording artist recording in some of the worlds best studios working with top producers and engineers. I have been on the credits of 3 records that spent time on Billboards top 10 chart. I have owned several world class instruments including cello and guitars. I grew up with an audiophile father who hand built his own first stereo in the late 50’s early 60’s while attending MIT for undergraduate and graduate school and was constantly trying to improve his system. Audio Research SP3 and SP6b with Vandersteen speakers were some of his prized system in the 70’s and 80’s—I know you would hate that system, but I wonder how many thousands of speakers Richard V has sold over the past half century?. I have been patiently building my own high end system since college in the 80’s (albeit never reaching into the stratosphere world that Jay is able to report on). I have been blessed to listen to some of the greatest musicians in very good… and very bad venues.
BUT…! I am not an expert. I am also an hobbyist. I am a music lover striving to eke out that little bit of higher performance within my limited budget.—By the way, there are other trained, professional musicians that also participate in this thread. You are far from special in this regard.
You regularly expound on equipment that you have not ever heard, let alone owned or had in your system and then castigate others for doing the same thing.
I have an idea…. Take out your camera phone—without changing a setting (we are on the honor system…!)—take a picture of your beloved Rane (clearly showing the settings) and post it on your Audiogon virtual system. We can then take a pole and post what we all think your system would sound like. My top 2 predictions…. 1. Teenager that listens to too much heavy metal at <105 db’s, 2. Deaf old man who ought to recognize his own deficiencies by virtue of the settings he has chosen on his Radio Shack quality, graphic equalizer that are readily available for $129.99 + shipping in 1 whopping payment from eBay.
You like to talk about equipment that is not to your preference as “euphonic”, “soft”, “rolled off”, etc. I’m guessing that were we not polite, we would describe your 1970’s era graphic equalizer modified preferred sound as “discordant”, “disharmonious”, “dissonant”, “inharmonious”, “blaring”, “grating”, “harsh”, “jarring”—antonyms for “euphonic”. I would likely describe it as strident, harsh and completely unnatural. In a world where the designers of high end equipment spend their lives striving to perfect their equipment according to you nearly every one of them get’s it so wrong that you have to apply up to 12 db to the top 15% of the spectrum—as stated per your prior posts—of elevating levels from 8000-20000 Hz. What you describe as “sparkle”, most of us would describe as shrill… the stuff of fingernails on a chalkboard.
You are being patently offensive when you say that the readers “…90% in favor of soft, pleasant amps with rolled off HF”. You are being patently offensive when you say “only a small % of a-Phil’s are trying to imitate reality/high fidelity… most people have a preference for just what pleases them without an objective standard.”
When tossing the word “foolish” about criticizing your expertise, clearly there is not a mirror large enough in your house to recognize yourself.
Warmest, Euphonic regards,
Paul
|
I'm sorry for any illness to our community that I have contributed towards. |
Oh no Jay!
With the addition of the grounding system and the new server... doesn't this mean you should revisit some of the past great ones???!
Don't know if I'd be happy or sad if you've found your amplifier nirvana!
|
Sounds great. I can't wait to hear more!
|
@keithr +1,
I have a pretty basic Linn LP12 rig with 1000+ records with a wet vac cleaner. And much as I appreciate great vinyl--and it does rival or exceed digital in some areas, I have made the decision to forgo seriously upgrading my analogue capabilities. I will enjoy and keep what I have even though I know there are much better upgrades available and focus on improving digital and the rest of my system.
If I was starting from scratch, I would not recommend going vinyl unless a person feels absolutely compelled to do so. It is lots of work, both in set up and maintenance as well in execution; i.e. shopping for records, properly cleaning and preparing a record plus the work to the physical work to play and change from one record to another... and I am a person who often listens to complete records! Jay, listens to songs and has over a million at his finger tips with streaming from the comfort of his listening chair. I’m not saying he is lazy. I think he just likes to change music often and values convenience. 99% of my listening is digital, even though the way I listen is far more conducive to the 5 minutes it takes to put on a new slab!
Long live vinyl! But I think Jay is the wrong candidate to launch into vinyl this late in his audiophile journey.
|
viber6,
I have found that playing music locally stored on an SSD yields the best digital sound. I have a 4 TB drive on an Innuos ZenMini with external power supply and around 2TB of music installed (both Red Book and high resolution). Convenience is A+ and sound quality exceeds both spinning discs and streaming although the differences with streaming vs local have been greatly reduced.
I still give a slight edge to locally stored vs. streamed for audio quality and have retired my dedicated transport and just use my Oppo BluRay player in the rare instance that I am spinning a physical disc (normally only for HD CD's that I can't or don't know how to rip). At 10x the price of my ZenMini, I would expect these differences to be even greater with Jay's Taeko as I know that even within the Innuos line, the Statement and the Zenith are both much better than ZenMini.
We could have a technical discussion of why a ripped cd will play better than the original disc but hopefully it is sufficient to say that mechanical controls that constantly are adjusting the speed of the CD during playback (linear speed is constant which dictates that rotational speed of the disc must constantly be adjusted--slowed down as you move from beginning (inner disc) to end (outer disc)introduce a ton of jitter. Additionally, I have found that crazy things like green paint and less crazy things like vibration isolation and absorption all seriously impact playback. Playing from a digitally identical copy while eliminating the playback mechanism makes it far less difficult to reduce the jitter and other distortions of a transport.
Also, I have found that full, non-compressed files sound better than lossless, compressed files and I am now leaning towards preferring flac to aiff. Lossy compression should never be considered a viable option with the low cost of disc drives except for portable media (iphones and airplane rides!). Like zprr, I'm surprised Jay is having such a dropoff in sound quality with streaming, I would expect with the Taeko that differences would be subtle. I suspect he has something going on with his internet provider, capabilities/speed, modem, router, switches, cables, etc... I couldn't agree more with the statement... "everything matters".
|
@kren0006
I would have taken that bet, then and now! lol I think your assessment is 100% correct. It has nothing to do with absolute fidelity, which I feel is getting close to arguable but I still think cost no object vinyl wins by a nose--or maybe even only a nose hair!), and high speed tape by a head (yes, pun intended...!). 25 years ago it was by 1/4 mile! Vinyl just doesn't suit Jays approach and how he seems to enjoy listening to music. Nothing wrong with that, but vinyl would disrupt some of Jays commitment to everything else. Frankly, there are plenty of people focussed on ultra high end vinyl. Jay has found a really good lane. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
|
Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but...
I believe that the more powerful the amplifier and the ability for the amplifier's power supply to deliver 2x the watts as impedance is halved makes it exponentially more difficult to design and build that amplifier. Not just the ability to provide current from reserves but to provide the correct amount of current uniformly across the impedance spectrum.
If this assumption is true, then it is far more demanding on an amplifiers capabilities to drive a speaker where there are dramatic swings in impedance over the range of the speaker. So, it is far easier to build a 400 watt amplifier to sound great with a speaker that has consistent 4 ohm impedance throughout the spectrum than it is to build a 200 watt amplifier for an 8 ohm speaker that has areas that drop into the 2 ohm region even though both amplifiers could conceivably be the same.
With the Alexx V being rated at 4 ohms and dropping down to 2 ohms (which could be understated) this dictates that a 200 watt at 8 ohm amplifier needs to confidently deliver at least 800 watts at 2 ohms and potentially as much as 1600 watts at 1 ohm. This is a very demanding load for all but the finest amplifiers.
I am generally a fan of Wilson speakers and have heard many recent models sound exceptional, but anyone venturing into "Wilson Land" ought to go there with the full understanding that the selection of amplifiers will be absolutely critical if they listen at any elevated levels.
Case in point, I heard the big mono block Audio Research amps driving Alexx V and the bass was disappointing... not bad... just not "moving" but then hearing the big Boulders drive the same speaker in the same room, the bass was "Is it Live or Memorex! crushing".
I don't think it is a fair criticism of a company to design a product that has specific partnering requirements. But it does put a level of onus and encumbrance on the dealer and the purchaser to make sure they are matching compatible products as part of the sales consideration process.
I have always been skeptical of assertions of what percentage of money should be spent on which components; especially ones where the speakers take up a disproportionately large part of the budget. Anyone who is spending $100K on speakers would be foolish to not anticipating spending at least $50K on amplification (if not significantly more!). This immediately puts you into the categories of amplifiers that Jay has been exploring. I couldn't agree more that I would never expect a $200K amp to be hiding from any speaker, but I definitely could see situations where it can happen. This doesn't mean that the amplifier is less than exceptional. Everything has limitations. If this weren't the case, I'm pretty sure, this thread would have run it's course years ago! We all need to be careful to not disparage equipment that doesn't perform in a specific situation.
I have Proac speakers which are a pretty easy load to drive, in fact I have heard them sound very nice with much lower powered Audio Research amps and a friend of mine tells me he had the same speakers with a Cary tube amp and that they have sounded exceptional, but trying to drive Wilsons with them would be just futile. Jay might even say that they sound "mid-fi"... lol
To further beat this dead horse, this is why it's important to try gear in a variety of situations before being overly positive or overly negative about it!
|
Viber6,
For the record... I was talking about Boulder on the Alexx V. Much as I love my ProAcs ($14,000 speakers), using Boulder ($99,000/pr) + Boulder preamp ($54,000) on them would be overkill. I'm sure they would sound their best though!
I agree with Ron17 and others. A poor amp on great speakers still leads to poor sound. An excellent amp on decent speakers can allow the speakers to sound their best even if it is a ridiculous proposition (i.e. Response 5 with Boulder).
In the Rouge shootout, I referenced my experience with the Classe Sigma Amp 5 (class D) amp which rendered the ProAcs more or less horrible sounding. I have also partnered 4 other class AB amps (Audible Illusions S-120, BAT VK 500, Classe' CA-5100 and--my current amplifier-- Classe'-2300) with the Proacs. All resulted in a good-very good sound with the 2300 being the best by far. Not Boulder/Wilson level, but really enjoyable for less than 1/10th of the cost!
|
Hi Jay,
I don't want to claim any special knowledge... but when I was around 6 years old in 1972, Ivor Tiefenbrun launched a product that is still in production: Linn Sondek LP12. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that "speakers were the most important component of an audio system." Ivor, much to the ridicule of just about the entire industry, challenged that presumption by claiming that "the source (i.e. turntable) was the most important part of a high-end audio system.
Over 100,000 turntables later, maybe he was right...
For all of you that may interpret this as a slam on digital, it is not. I am saying that once a signal is degraded, it can never be recovered so the better the source, the better the rest of the system has the opportunity to perform. So whether your choice is vinyl, digital, R2R or 2" masters (if you're lucky enough to have heard some of them) the ultimate high-end audio requires the best source you can buy.
I agree with @ron17: The less expensive your system is, the more likely you are to have to spend a disproportionate amount of money on speakers. Once you are into the moderate high-end audio range (maybe a $50K system) the balance skews away from speakers towards source, pre-amp (if you are using one), amp and as dramatically towards cabling and accessories. In my system, almost all of my components are msrp <$10,000 and my speakers slightly more, (I bought them used for only $4K). If you add up my cables/accessories (power chords, ethernet, interconnects, speaker cables, usb, isolation, power distribution), these have an msrp of around $50K! But if someone told me I had pick one component to "skimp" on reduce the value in my system. I'm sure I could be satisfied with an $8,000 pair of speakers.
I do not completely agree with Ivor. For me, a balanced system is the most important "component". It makes no sense to have anything disproportionately more or less expensive than the rest of the system. I'm sure the MSB Select would improve my system, but it would be just as silly to add it as it would be to add $100K speakers, unless I was upgrading the whole rest of the system commensurately. But as you go up to the "cost no object" system, I think law of diminishing returns hits speakers harder and faster than the other components so at Jays level, it comes as no surprise to me that the DAC is of primal importance.
|
@viber6,
My only complaint with my LP12 is that it requires such frequent tuneups which I am completely incapable of doing on my own. I don’t foresee a time when it will be removed from my system, unless I get tired of dragging it to someone who can effectively work on it. I do see a time when I upgrade its cartridge, power supply, bearing, etc… Maybe I should just trade it in for a Clearaudio…!
I appreciate your nuanced words that I believe are largely in agreement with my point, that once a certain minimum level is achieved on speakers that the rest of the playback chain is at least as important in value/additional dollar spent.
For those who are focussed on room treatments, I don’t think any of the serious followers of this thread understate the importance of the speaker/room interaction. But I suspect there are many excellent threads on this topic. Last I checked, this was a thread focussed first and foremost on the best amplification and has by virtue of necessity and interest drifted into the rest of the componentry chain. While room treatment is important, and vinyl or R2R also can sound fantastic, and home theater-surround sound have a large following, one of the great things about Jay’s thread is that it doesn’t need to be everything to everybody. In fact it is the specificity of Jay’s quest and his expertise that has proven so very interesting to me.
Love the focussed quest for the best of amplification Jay and appreciate that you have also appropriately expanded on the very related topics of pre-amps, processors, cables, power supplies, grounding, etc.
Thanks for all of your hard work!
|
Re the LP12, I agree with all that both of you have written. I was really kind of kidding about getting rid of it. I just hate that I have to take it to a specialized dealer that is not convenient for me. To get everything really right I do believe it takes at least a specialist if not a "guru". lol I have poor vision and am incapable of the fine motor skills necessary to do any work on it myself and while the LP12 can still be fantastic, there are now many other TT that are also fantastic.
And yes Viber, cheers to Ivor. He is one of the revolutionaries that truly made a great and positive impact by shaking up the audiophile world.
|
A yawn would better be defined by someone who only deconstructs and does not build anything of significance other than animosity. I appreciate that Jay is working his butt off towards continuously increasing his knowledge, understanding and experiences and sharing that growth with us.
As to influencers, I had a really great discussion with the president of Gryphon at Axpona. Sales of that product line have more than tripled over the past 2 years, growing much faster in US and Canada than anywhere else in the world. Jakob specifically attributed a significant portion of that growth to Jay. They have sold 86 of the $100K/$200K amplifiers since February 1st!
For those of you who don't feel any value in participating in Jay's journey, fine. You can leave. There are many of us who feel we are making better informed and more rewarding choices in our buying decisions. There are many who just enjoy vicariously entering a world where our finances would never allow us to fully participate.
Cheers to Jay for his continued and evolving work! For anyone who doesn't want to acknowledge and appreciate this, tearing down others only makes you smaller and even less significant.
I hope Jay finds success and continues his beneficial and enjoyable work.
|
Dude, you suggested moderators shut the thread down... 'nuff said... go away!
|
