WC,
Words are always inadequate to describe sound, but both "muffled" and "warm" refer to how the natural edges of transients are rounded and subtracted from the total overtones of the sound. Also, when I heard an early version of the GTA speaker in Steve's large home room, driven by only a 60 watt Pass, it sounded neutral but not "muffled" or "warm." I did not hear the typical warmth of Pass. That is a testament to the neutrality and detail of the GTA. However, if I heard it with my own neutral Mytek or your Gryphon, I probably would have described the Pass as being muffled only by comparison.
|
tweak1,
I should clarify. My Mytek has almost as much speed as my Bryston while being slightly smoother than the Bryston. This is just another example of the tradeoff between speed/detail and smoothness. On balance, I like the Bryston best, but I need the more powerful Mytek for more dynamic music. |
ricevs,
I agree about your speaker assessment. Your Tekton MOAB's have a lot going for them, although I have never heard them.
I also agree that live music sometimes has warmth, which is the case in soft wooded rooms and halls, and at a distance where there is HF rolloff. However, at close range, the tonality of voices and instruments is surprisingly dry and cool. The cello has body, but it also has dryness and rough edges from the micro and macro scraping of the bow on the string--I know because I am a violinist and sit close as a listener.
In general, live voices and instruments can have both warmth and detail, but all speakers are flawed and murky by comparison. Warm speakers tend to sacrifice detail, especially at HF. So I think it is appropriate to cheat and choose electronics/cables that bring out the detail which is revealed by close miking. Relative thinness is often a byproduct of this approach. Another factor is that scaling down the large dimension of the live stage to the much smaller dimension of the listening room will create relative thinness. Even with live instruments like a large piano, it will sound good on a large stage, but overwhelm a smaller room. To avoid bloating and inflation of the image, it is necessary to thin it down to where the listening room experience can suggest the same smaller and focused image in the live larger hall.
|
Jay,
You are the master audio businessman. You've come a long way, baby. 5 years ago, you were listening to mid-fi stuff, and now you are at the SOTA level and with a growing YT following. You know better than I how to run your YT channel. So my main contribution to your audio happiness is showing how you can obtain maximum audio pleasure with different components, probably saving lots of money in the journey. As far as the Benchmark AHB2 goes, several well meaning people have vouched for the outstanding qualities of that amp. Mikey has gained a great YT presence by recommending cheap, excellent products. He wouldn't like the neutrality of the AHB2, but you can make a similar YT hit by comparing it to your new neutral amps.
|
No, not edgy and artificial. Sounds exciting to me, although I haven't heard this recording on any of Jay's previous systems. Accurate and lively with clarity sounds edgy and artificial to people who crave euphonics. |
I don't know what soft drinks doctors like. All soft beverages are bad because of the sugar. I only drink kombucha, plain tea, coffee, water. Years ago, a study on diet coke showed no weight loss compared to regular coke, very surprising. The chemical sweeteners stimulate the appetite more than sugar. Both chemicals and sugar cause damage to the intestinal lining, resulting in "leaky gut" which is the gateway to many autoimmune diseases. Most doctors don't know this, and are busy prescribing dangerous immunosuppressive drugs for these autoimmune diseases. Very few doctors are health conscious, and are the medical equivalent of hifi salesmen.
Jay, you are very muscular, which is healthy. I'd be curious to know what your body fat % is. I like these body fat scales you can buy for $30-60 and use at home anytime. |
WC,
Do your experiments, I'm all for that. However, it is unlikely that a flagship amp like the Mephisto would be designed to sound great only with particular cables, stands, etc. No doubt many happy Mephisto owners each have different setups. Every amp has its unique character, regardless of the supporting cast. Although the supporting cast makes a difference, it doesn't make or break the star of the show, the Mephisto.
You found that the Merrill has its own readily identifiable character. We agreed on what that character is, even though I had the 114 and you have the 118, and I have different interconnect cables, zip cord, the Rane EQ, and no stand. You will find that the Mephisto has its own basic character, although of course the supporting cast will change it, but only somewhat. So please describe what you like and don't like about the Mephisto at present, so we can help diagnose the problem.
|
The introductory bass is muddy on all 3, so I skip to 20 seconds later when the guitar comes in and then the voice appears. The first minute after the guitar starts tells the story, otherwise to spend almost 4 minutes on each is tiring. Still listening and trying to judge.
|
Very close on my regular iMac. #2 seems most focused on voice and sparkly/twangy on guitar. My preference is #2, then #3, then #1.
|
WC,
You could record the spoken voices of you and your wife, and any half-decent amateur singers or acoustic guitar and percussion player friends you know. Having decent external mikes would help, but even the recording setup you have now would enable you to make a natural recording that would be far superior to most recordings you listen to, which are highly processed and unnatural. You could record in your new listening room which is somewhat dead, or in a more live room in the house. Keep the mikes relatively close to avoid smearing from reverberation. You could also record outdoors at a quiet time to get openness and distant sounds of birds, the wind as background to your spoken voices and music. That's ultimate ambiance.
|
Several people have noted that the differences in the power cords with regular computer audio are subtle. So subtle that there are differences in perceptions as to which has more treble, etc. When 2 items are very close, single blinded tests like this often show random outcomes. But with amplifiers, the differences have been shown by your videos to be more obvious. I don't doubt that we will be surprised when the truth of the cable identities is revealed. Perhaps the most expensive will be shown to not be the best. So my preliminary conclusion is that more money should be spent on amps and speakers than power cords.
|
I just heard the latest video. Since you are so happy with the sound, how about curing your nervousness about making any component changes, by learning more music you can enjoy. What's the point of great equipment without using it as a means of getting more out of the music? Most people at lower levels of accomplishment than you, get out all their recordings and enjoy them anew. |
WC,
For a great panel, although I haven't heard it, try the cheap $650 Maggie LRS. No, it doesn't have the biggest bass and dynamics, but for quality of sound and medium size it should have great clarity with a nice medium sized image free of inflationary bloating. I have a long 40 year experience listening to the bigger and biggest Maggies. Fascination at first quickly led to disgust at the inflationary bloating. The GTA is tall but narrow so it has a nice sized image. The Neolith is too big and bloated with rolled off HF as a result, and too risky because of the price. The GTA is getting more expensive with each revision. I still believe it is the best planar for you, but you can have fun with the cheap Maggie LRS. Don't waste money on the bigger Maggies--the GTA is clearly better than them all.
Oh I forgot--the ML CLX is still the best for clarity, naturalness. With a REL sub, as mentioned by dasign, it is a top choice along with the GTA in a similar price range.
|
Smodtactical makes sense with the guy he talked to. Boulder is known for neutrality, and their latest series is far superior to the previous line, according to Rich Maez, the marketing man of Boulder. Maez may be biased, but I would make Boulder your next amp to try. Jump on it, they don't come up often. Like the Mephisto, Boulder will probably require lots of break in time. Don't waste time with the Antileon Evo, which 1-2 people said is euphonic compared to the Mephisto.
|
ron17,
On my iMac computer, I had the same observations as you, before WC revealed the identities of 1,2,3. But after it was revealed, with the bias, I found that the Odin was the most bright and detailed. But all 3 were very close, which proves that findings can be random and inconsistent when the actual differences are small in a poor resolution system like the computer. Also, blinded listening really has value with bias nearly eliminated. Even better would be double blinding, where a stranger sets up the tests, and both WC and we are doing it blinded. Still, for the huge price of some cables that don't show night and day differences from way less expensive cables, WC should just get the GTA speakers, which WILL make the night and day difference in the total system sound.
WC, I don't recall whether you ever had the Neolith speakers in your present room. Your present room is roughly the same size as your former room, so I believe you know enough already about how the Neoliths would sound. I believe the GTA does nearly everything you value better than anything else. The Neolith may have more natural and detailed midrange, however. The ML CLX is a better example of purity than the Neo, but doesn't have the dynamics of the GTA.
|
WC,
Another thought about GTA and other panel speakers. Your difficulty with tolerating loud volumes of more accurate information, esp HF is most likely due to dynamic speakers. Compared to ribbons, planar magnetic and electrostatic drivers, dynamic drivers are more massive and nonlinear. It takes sledgehammer tricks to get a dynamic speaker to have the detail of the other designs. Getting that detail often leads to incoherence, lack of smoothness, some harshness of HF at high volumes. By contrast, all the electrostatics, ribbons and planars I have heard have smoothness along with detail, so are not fatiguing at high volumes. Rather than compromising on electronics and cables that soften the unpleasantness at high volumes, it would be better to get the GTA which is smooth and detailed, so you can enjoy your highest detail/liveliness Odin 1 and Valhalla cables at all volumes. Same goes for the DCS without the softening of the preamp, and the Gryphon amp.
BTW, Merrill W told me he thinks upsamplers are not appropriate. In his experience they soften the sound. Our reasoning is that a 44 kHz recording cannot have any more information than what is contained in that sampling rate. The upsamplers are not really sampling the greater information that would be present if the recording was done at the higher sampling rate--the upsamplers are merely throwing in extra data that has nothing to do with the music. This out of context data creates smear that people hear as smoothness.
|
shannere,
On the contrary, you should do the listening I have done. You might even realize what you have been missing with your own closed mind.
|
Jay,
Excuse this turntable interlude in your thread. You may be too busy at present to get involved in analog, but you can see from the discussions amongst Paul, Daveyf and myself that there is so much variation in sound from different setups, that you will want to pursue this eventually. Daveyf believes that the whole enchilada Linn is the best available. At $30K it is much more expensive than the original Linn of 1972, but it has worthwhile improvements so I think it represents good value. Mike Fremer thought his $200K Continuum TT was the best, but careful reading of his recent reviews indicates that SOTA systems can cost a lot less. As you noted, it makes little sense to spend big bucks on DAC's. The differences between cheap players and the best are relatively small, compared to the VAST differences among cartridges.
The top Linn is precise, but change the cartridge, and you can get a whole spectrum of sound from warm to analytic. I think you will have more fun with analog than digital. Cartridges are speaker transducers in reverse, so the differences are as great as with speakers.
|
WC,
There you go again, "However, if you went to the simaudio 888 -$120k Monos and you are coming from the 860a, you will need to spend more money on the rest of your system. It’s s whole different league and level."
You know nothing without listening. Forget about money--expensive things are not necessarily better, despite what your contacts say. I hope you learn this before you have a financial and emotional breakdown. Already you are scared/angry that the Mephisto is not what you assumed it would be. If the Mephisto is not so good right out of the box in areas other than bass, beware. You will no doubt improve it, or get used to it and rationalize that it is the greatest because of what you paid for it. But THE END--no way! Time will tell. |
shannere,
Alright, you don't agree with my advice or don't comprehend it which was intended for WC and contains useful info that many people appreciate. If it is not useful for you, that's OK. But there is no need to be hostile towards me.
As a physician, I sometimes give useful advice to patients and friends that differ from standard practices. Of course, I don't insult them. If someone doesn't understand or disagrees with what I recommend, they don't get argumentative and insult me to my face. They are welcome to discuss their difference of opinion, which gives me an opportunity to clarify and elaborate further. Often they come back and say my advice was helpful, and that no other physician contributed so much to their health. For those patients that don't follow my advice, some of them come back with the same problems, and I gently remind them that if they follow my advice, they will feel better. I ask them to come back a month later, so if they are not better, I can try to think of other treatments that might work out better.
This analogy with the audiophile quest is obvious. Unfortunately, the quest for great health and recovery from serious illness is much more difficult as we all know. Be well.
|
Carey1110,
Yes, WC's system is enjoyable to me, even from my mediocre computer audio.
The most important question you posed is how do I know when the glass is clear? From my vast experience of hearing live instruments and voices of all types in many venues, I have a composite familiarity with the idea of "clear." I often walk past a house with an open window and the drummer is playing--I know it is live and not a recording, because of the freshness and general clarity that is hard to put into words. I walk past a playground where kids are playing handball, and hear the crispness of their hand slaps. Same for the basketball players and hearing the lower pitch of the bouncing basketball. When I walk daily, I listen to the natural sounds of spoken conversations, close and further away. All these sounds are crisp, so I really don't understand why anyone would deliberately not want crispness in their music, but they are free to like any sound they want.
Recording engineers often play games with their artificial processing and manipulations. This is less applicable to naturally recorded classical and jazz. Even so, the concept of crispness still applies as a desirable goal--the processing is not so bad as to interfere with the perception of crispness underneath the layers of processing.
A separate case applies to my use of EQ. I would like to find an EQ that has a clearer glass window than my Rane EQ. Some recordings have a distant perspective created by engineers who use mellow mikes and mix in distant omnidirectional mikes. I can take such recordings, use my EQ to boost HF judiciously to successfully make the perspective much closer, to my liking. The famous Mercury Living Presence recordings of the 1950's are widely respected for their upfront, live perspective, hence the name, "Living Presence." Even I didn't realize until as recently as 20 years ago, due to my experience in EQ, that these Mercury recordings were done with EQ. One day I'll get a more transparent EQ with better electronics than my Rane, but even today the Rane's very flexible EQ functions vastly outweigh its slight liabilities for transparency.
But the issue of audio flavoring superimposing itself on the natural colors of live music is still important. I want maximum transparency without the coloring of electronics. EQ is a special case which corrects much of the defects of all speakers and the choices of the recording studio that I hear as nullifying much of the live excitement of natural music. Did you ever go to a store which has parallel mirrors on opposite walls, look into the mirror, see yourself in the first reflection, then look slightly off axis and see the multiple reflections? How about noisy analog recordings where several generation copies are vastly inferior to the original? A great thing about digital is that many generation copies still sound close to the original. These two analogies help explain my position on this subject.
Quality violins are hideously expensive, and I would love to own a few. I had to settle for my present 1890 Theodor Paulus violin because it was affordable and it had the approximate type of sound I like best. That sound is detailed and brilliant with still enough tonal sweetness. But I do like a variety of tonal personalities in other violins. This gets me back to my overall view that I appreciate tonal variety and beauty of natural unamplified instruments and voices, but don't like electronics that cause additional coloring superimposed on the natural colors.
|
On your earliest videos with the Focal Scala I preferred it to the Wilson Alexia 1 on another video, although the music was different, so it was a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. The Focal was more detailed and more natural at the same time. I don't care what flavor a preamp may add, it will remove some detail. You may at first be intrigued with the added flavor, but then will realize that some detail is sacrificed so that at moderate SPL's you will enjoy the clarity and naturalness without the preamp. I heard a smaller Focal at Harry Weisfeld's VPI house 6 months ago. There is little doubt that Focal's technology is superior to Wilson. I look forward to the next video.
|
kren0006,
By no stretch of the imagination (except for yours) was my Rouge butt-kicked. We had this discussion many months ago. At least 40% of the YT voters preferred the Rouge. You and Jay preferred his amp. All that proves is that both of your sonic preferences for a little warmth are consistent with that choice. Why do you deprecate the preferences of others who voted for the Rouge? What gives you the nerve to think they don't know what they are talking about? Jay is more open than you to respecting the choices of others.
But unlike you who say that musical knowledge and experiences have nothing to do with analyzing sound, my experiences give me an understanding of why people have different preferences. For example, if a classical music or jazz unamplified music listener likes midhall tonal quality, he would tend to choose warmer electronics, speakers, etc. I respect his musical tastes, just as I respect his choice of a musical instrument to play such as midrange-dominant cello or French horn. My favorite instrument is the violin, more HF oriented, so I prefer the front row seat. He and I respect each others tastes and agree that those tastes correspond with our audio preferences.
My biggest objection is using artificial recordings and live rock events with bad amps and PA speakers to judge audio. The worst I've heard here is the Zeppelin video. The sound is muddy and distorted. How can anyone judge analog vs digital using that? How can neutrality, warmth, or anything we discuss here be assessed from that recording? Anyone who enjoys that music is entitled to their musical pleasure, but why use that recording? I wouldn't use a 1920 classical recording for audio evaluation, although I appreciate the musical content. But Jay's music is much more tame than Zeppelin, much better audio quality, and much more useful for assessment of audio components.
It is most useful to use live, unamped music as a reference. Sit at different distances, and be aware of different mike techniques used to make recordings. If you build your audio system based on the quest for high fidelity, these experiences are important. But if the listener just wants sound to please him without any reference to high fidelity to natural music, that's OK for him, but it does take the wonder out of why many of us were attracted to this hobby. It all started about 120 years ago, when middle class people who couldn't afford to hire live musicians could experience their "likeness" in their homes on demand. "His Master's Voice" with the dog listening to the horn of the record player was a great promotion for the thrill of fidelity, which got better and better.
|
WC,
Yes, the high end audio business is tough. I do understand how many customers give the dealers a rough time, but unfortunately sometimes they cheat an honorable customer like you. You do a great job presenting the equipment as truthfully as possible. And thanks for beginning to recognize some of the points I have made, such as the value of listening at modest levels to best appreciate the subtle differences and to avoid ear fatigue. Like you, I have made errors in not keeping the volumes the same when making comparisons, which has led me to incorrect conclusions. Also, thanks for bringing the ML 13A, and your open mind to the fact that maybe this modestly priced speaker has a combination of attributes that exceed much more expensive speakers. When you set them up, I hope you accept my suggestions about how to max out the performance of them.
|
WC,
Agree with henrycai that it is the power line. Many people have said the system sounds better after midnight when the power line is cleaner from fewer users. It depends on what is going on in your neighborhood, so I may be pleasantly surprised at unpredictable times.
Your moods are definitely a factor. If I listen too much, my mind/ears get accustomed to the sound and there may be fewer delights. Often, waking up in the AM with fresh ears, gives me the best sound and pleasure.
|
I heard the preamp/no preamp comparison. The preamp adds veiling and distortion. It is irrelevant to discuss image size, warmth. The recording itself is murky with the piano submerged in a cave under water. The voice has more immediacy without preamp. It will be a good move to ditch both dynamic speakers in favor of the ML 15a or CLX. Midrange will be more revealing and natural. The Be tweeter on the Focal may have more accuracy than the flawed curved stat panel which rolls off HF, but the midrange contains most of the music. Then you will be ready for the most important shootout of all--ML vs GTA vs Sanders. The Sanders flat panel stat is a better design than ML. You can't lose with the 30 day trial.
|
True, but you made a big backwards move by spending big bucks on a veiled tube preamp. Dump the ARC when you can. Any of those speakers--ML, GTA, Sanders--are keepers and should be not treated as disposable toys. Although you had the ML 15a years ago, your ancillary equipment has greatly improved, so I am sure you will appreciate them for a long time.
|
Buzzwords like the negatives of complicated electronics in crossovers is merely one factor. The theoretical ideal speaker uses lowest mass drivers tightly controlled by either electrostatic stators or ribbon magnets. If the designer can use the least intrusive electronic crossover, that is great. But look at the total package. The inherently superior electrostatic transducer, even handicapped by flawed electronics, may still come out ahead. The trouble is that except for the flat panel Sanders, other stats with their curved panels are flawed. I like the purist approach of GTA. But theory may not correlate exactly with reality, so that's why the GTA and Sanders should be compared patiently.
|
The Focal is clearly (pun intended) the winner. When the Focal comes on, the voice is immediately more intimate, closer and more nuanced. This is due to the superior Be tweeter as implemented. Articulation is way better in mid/HF. With the Focal, the girl is whispering sweet nothings into your ear, whereas with the Wilson she is more distant, veiled and emotionally detached.
Keep the Focal as a reference, until you get the GTA for that comparison. Don't try to save money by buying used. You will get an unknown older model. Even at retail of $20K, you will get updates by dealing directly with Steve. You might even prefer an earlier version of the retrofittable diaphragm, so you could have it your way, or accept the latest version. To make this really fun, you could have a few different diaphragms on hand, so you could install each yourself and compare diaphragms. I don't think Greg or Steve have made comparative videos like this, so if you did so, they would appreciate your creativity and give you great deals in return.
|
TJAssoc,
Totally correct. Striving for neutrality in each component is paramount. And as you say, "but mating one component emphasis to compensate for another components void will never allow the system to present things naturally and with the best fidelity."
At any given age, females have better hearing than males. In general, they also have better musical judgment and don't describe components as "muscular" which applies to cars but has nothing to do with music. I remember the great writings of Enid Lumley for Absolute Sound 40 years ago about tweaks. I thought she was farfetched back then, but now I realize she knew what she was talking about, just by using her own ears.
|
gbmcleod,
Thanks for your reminiscences of TAS and HP. HP had character and I enjoyed reading him. He was musically astute and taught audiophiles how to meaningfully describe how components reveal the music. You have done an excellent job of more meaningfully describing Rowland's for example in terms of tonal character and balance. Pavarotti, like all well trained opera singers, was more powerful than much less well trained pop singers like Sinatra. But the instantly recognizable differences are well described in timbre and subtle musical phrasings, rather than nonmusical qualities like "muscularity" and so on.
|
gbmcleod,
Love your stories. I'll try what you and Enid say. I bought lots of Greenwave filters (for dirty electricity) for EMF pollution at home and in the office. The Greenwave meter measures reductions from the filters. I'm not sure of the effect on audio, which is subtle. See what you find.
|
klh007,
Interesting, thanks. Which single array models did you hear? Now if you could do the Be vs stock tweeter comparison, that would be a captivating read. Moabs with the stock tweeters are certainly the value leader at $4.5K, but how will they rate with all Be tweeters at $14K? Who knows, maybe someone would prefer the stock tweeters to the Be ones. |
WC, how bad is the hum? Does the music come through, just with an overlay of hum? Is it low freq hum or higher freq buzz? Does it happen with the Denali and also if plugged into the wall without the Denali? This is certainly unsatisfactory and disappointing, but the answers might help solve the problem. It could be a ground problem with that combination of components, so the Nordost QBase is a great idea. Just for sound quality alone, I am curious to see how the QBase compares with the Denali.
|
Never mind the money for Dag vs Luxman. My interpretation of Chazzy's findings is that he likes the greater accuracy of the Dag, but WC seems to be in love with the specific euphonic flavor of the Lux 900.
Please stop the nonsense that just because something is more expensive then it must be better, whatever "better" means to someone. More expensive means better parts, more weight, etc. But the most important criterion for sound quality is the thinking behind the product. At the moment, I am intrigued by the latest Stereophile review of the $3500 Primare A35.2 stereo amp, which has proprietary class D tech. Herb Reichert the reviewer claims that it is more accurate than my beloved Mytek Brooklyn Amp, which I have found to be more accurate than all much more expensive amps I have heard at home. I don't take Herb's views as gospel, but I think I will let a dealer run the Primare for a long time and then try it, according to the great advice of Guido Corona. |
kren0006,
My last post is merely a statement of several facts. Chazzzy just re-confirmed that he found the Dag superior to the Lux in every way, INCLUDING clarity. WC won't disagree that he likes the certain euphonic flavor of the Lux. This has enabled him to enjoy the DCS direct without the softening of a preamp.
It is you who injects a negative tone to what I really said.
|
pokey77,
Which TAD class D do you own? What is its sound character? I am amazed at the sound quality and value offered by class D. The debate goes on about whether it is SOTA.
|
Kren0006,
Only from what I've read, the Soulution 500 series is more euphonic than the older 700 series. Jay said that the Soulution 530 is more transparent/neutral than the Pass combo. I'd love to hear a shootout between a top Boulder and a Soulution 700. If you like neutrality, the Boulder 1160 is good value and worth considering. The Boulder 1161 is the only one I can lift by myself. Decent peak power capability, only $22K MSRP, price not going up, unlike big increases in other Boulders. |
pokey77,
Thanks for your TAD M2500 mention. This should be of interest to many people here, including WC, as a SOTA contender.
|
I like the Audio Research better than the Luxman preamps. I hear the Luxman as being midrange-centric at the expense of the HF, The ARC shows more details/enunciation in her voice with more sibilants but nothing excessive. The ARC sounds more lifelike with less coloration than the Luxman.
I like the recording of the voice which is a good demo piece for your comparisons. Even though some music may tempt you to crank the volume, on this meditative recording, the voice at live, natural levels is about 75 dB or so. If you push the volume, she will sound bloated and lose focus, out of character for this music. If a solo voice is natural at 75 dB, a chorus of 10 voices with be at 85 dB. In a more impassioned piece, a solo singer could reach 90-100 dB on peaks, so the right SPL depends on the character of the music and the number of performers involved.
|
kren,
One day you will understand that low mass drivers have inherent advantages over conventional dynamic drivers. Electrostatic designs have been around for 100 years, and are simple and relatively cheap to make. Dynamic speakers are improving, due to better materials, but for clarity, low mass rules, so properly designed stats are king, followed by planar ribbons, then dynamics. The only advantage of dynamics is for power. All the money in the world cannot get a dynamic driver to react as sensitively and with as low distortion as a lower mass driver. For those who don't respect the laws of physics for speakers, I'll use vehicle analogies and say that the fastest horse cannot transport its rider as fast or effortlessly as an ordinary car.
The Maggie 20.7 has the better clarity; the Wilson has the better dynamic capability, esp, in bass.
|
WC,
Both videos of the 20.7 + Mephisto with and without the Christine preamp are fantastic. The music is palpably natural. DCS without the Christine is slightly more transparent with more head turning sparkle, so I prefer that. Still, the differences are small, at least heard on my computer, a tribute to the excellence of the Christine. If someone needs additional gain, the Christine is a good choice.
|
Sounds good, but again it is meaningless unless you demonstrate the same recording in different formats. A great recording will sound great no matter what the format, and a lousy ultra processed recording will sound lousy no matter what the format.
|
WC,
Sorry to repeat, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Shunyata Denali vs AQ Niagara conditioners. In my system, the Denali is worthwhile, but I heard more clarity with the AQ on your video. In your room, the differences should be more apparent. |
psnyder149,
You posed an amusing challenge. But statistics and voting are meaningless on several levels. Take presentation 1, 45% vs 55%. The absolute difference is 10%, but the relative difference is 10/45 = 22%. Take presentation 3, 37% vs 63%, absolute difference of 26%, relative difference of 26/37 = 70%. In the real world of rare diseases with an incidence of 0.1%, suppose a toxin increases the incidence to 0.2%. The media loves to make sensationalist headlines by saying the toxin doubles the incidence, but the actual increase is only 0.1%.
But my nitpicking about proper statistical interpretation is less important than the experience and qualifications of the individual listeners, voters, etc. We’ll never know this crucial information. There were a few YT listeners who actually posted in-depth analyses of what they heard with the Rouge vs mystery amp. The general tone of the in-depth comments was that the Rouge was more detailed, but the mystery amp was more musical. This all came down to preferences only. Butt-kicking is a foolish characterization.. I SLIGHTLY preferred the Rouge, but would not say it butt-kicked the mystery amp. Before the A/B, I believed that Jay’s amp was a euphonic marshmallow by comparison, but after careful listening and being honest, I admitted that they were close, and so did lots of people. I came away liking Jay’s choices, delighting that he also values clarity, with a little warmth added.
Dangerous assessment tools are polls and surveys. They don’t tell much of value. On a plane with 100 passengers, and 2 pilots, who do you trust for your safety? If there are no trained pilots among the passengers, do you let the ignorant 100 passengers outvote the pilots on the proper way to land the plane, or do you trust the minority 2 pilots who know what they are doing?
P.S. I just read Jay’s description of his new king of neutrality amp. I am intrigued. Suppose he did a shootout with this King Neutral amp with the Mystery amp. I bet the people who thought the Mystery amp butt-kicked the Rouge would also find that it would butt-kick the King Neutral amp for the same reason--they just prefer euphonics. That’s still OK, just their preference. My message is that they should not say that A butt-kicks B but just say, "I like A much more than B." That’s honest. Then explain why, which is informative to listeners of all preferences.
But the Mystery amp is gone, so that shootout won’t happen. However, Jay, just please get the Benchmark AHB2, do a shootout between Prince Neutral (AHB2) and King Neutral. Since you now value neutral amps, that would be most meaningful and helpful to all. If you don’t put up the money (although you get it back in a trial for a month), perhaps you can convince jimmy2615 (see the top of this page) who bought the AHB2 and found it delightfully neutral, to send it to you for a listen and then shootout. Jimmy, you will be appreciated, thanks.
|
mrdecibel,
Right, but Jay does critical listening at 82 dB, so the lower powered AHB2 will still compete on that level for discernment of the overall character of the amps. My Rouge has much more balls than my Mytek, but I am back to the Mytek for its greater clarity. The Mytek is Pascal based; the Rouge is IceEdge. I am awaiting the Rouge Alauda S2 which uses the most accurate Pascal module and input stage, but pandemic supply chain problems for the parts are holding things up.
|
WC,
I liked the AQ Niagara over the Shunyata, for the AQ's greater ambience, openness. Still not much of a difference. It would have been nice to first hear everything without either AQ or Shunyata. What do you find without any conditioner, and then with AQ and Shunyata? |
whitecamaross--I am new to your thread, and thank you for your extensive honest reporting. My values are a little different, and I will sacrifice dynamics and bass power for absolute clarity/precision. I have vintage inefficient Audiostatic electrostatics in parallel with Enigmacoustics electrostatic super tweeters in parallel with a net impedance of about 1 ohm in the highs. My listening average dB level for classical music small ensembles to orchestra, with some audiophile jazz for testing, is in the 70's. I don't care about loud passages in the 90's if the clarity in the 70's is mediocre. Low level detail is really in the 20-40's range. My present amp is the Bryston 2.5 B SST2. I am one of few who can tell you that the 2.5B blows away the more popular 4B in clarity and neutrality of tonal balance at modest power levels, despite the official line of Bryston that all the amps in the series sound identical. I told one of them recently about my findings, and he admitted that the smaller 2.5 may sound better because of the shorter signal path. I have always felt that fewer transistors helps to avoid the potential errors from slightly unequal greater number of transistors.
I am writing today because of my excitement over your discovery of the Adcom. As it brakes in, please report on the tonal balance of it. Is it crisp, or is it a warmer flavor? My tastes are in the minority--most people like warmer sound, but I am a violinist and I show everyone I meet that the truth at close range is very scratchy and the opposite of warm. I do need more power than my little Bryston, and I hope you can report on which amps are most ruthlessly revealing, especially in mids and highs. Many thanks.
|
WC, thanks for your helpful comment about the warmth of the Adcom. This fits with a few reviews of the 565 that say the highs are rolled off. Beware when someone describes something as smooth sounding--this usually means that highs are subdued. On the Theta, guidocorona has described how the Merrill class D amps had a long, long breakin period of perhaps 1000 hours, so I hope you give the Theta a good long time and report as you go along.
|
keithr,
I tried Bryston models 4B (original from 1978), 4B ST, 4B SST2, 3B SST. They were all vastly inferior to my 2.5B SST2 for clarity, snap, etc.
"Real experience?" Tell me what your musical background is. What is your listening experience, and are you a master in playing any natural, unamplified instrument, playing with various ensembles publicly and privately in many countries, participating in master classes over many decades? Aside from quoting distortion measurements, what qualifies you to judge what is neutral, natural? How much classical music do you know? This music is so complex that clarity/detail is top priority.
|
