kren,
Just talk logic. You said, "Even if the Dag has better clarity, which is arguable but you seem to think so, the Gryphon was still better, which summarily disproves your contention that clarity trumps all." No, it doesn't. What it logically proves is that you think the Gryphon is better, having less clarity. But you preferred Nordost over Wireworld in the next video. Nordost is noted for its superior clarity, and WW for its relative warmth. This shows that you do value clarity.
Perhaps that congested/processed recording led me to draw the wrong conclusion that the Dag + stand had superior clarity to the Gryphon without the stand. If another recording shows that the Gryphon has superior clarity to the Dag, I will prefer the Gryphon. I have no allegiance to brand names, but prefer anything with superior clarity. I am still shocked about how a stand could make a lower clarity amp have more clarity than a higher clarity amp without the stand. More trials are needed with horizontal amps with and without the stand.
|
Ricevs,
Agree about EQ. "Fast" is hard to define and explain, especially in electronics. Circuit speed is roughly the speed of light, but that doesn’t translate into listening characteristics of "fast." The best way I can think of it is the startle feeling you get when a truck horn blasts at you, or when you hear the crack of a golf club, baseball bat, etc. For music, the startle from trumpets, snap of guitar, etc. This is due to higher freq components/overtones of lower freq fundamentals. But warmth is due to smoothing over of these higher freq overtones. Live, unamplified instruments heard at close distance, are coherent but not warm. There is nothing smoothed over.
|
Very flawed analogy about a football game. You seem to believe that all the audio subcategories you can think of have equal weight. In football or any game, a great team does have everyone contributing high ability. But in audio, clarity is not merely a subcategory--it affects everything, like R/L separation, depth, tightness at all freq, etc. And yes, balance. If the whole freq range is in balance with clarity, that is the ideal. Live music is about clarity and balance. What good is balance in an audio system, if clarity in all freq ranges is equally mediocre? There is the familiar argument that neutrality is not enough, when the whole freq range could suffer from mediocre clarity. In fact, my narrow electrostatic speakers have greatly reduced output below 100 Hz, but the superlative clarity lets me hear accurate overtones of 50 Hz fundamentals, so psychoacoustically I hear more bass musical information even though the low fundamentals are way diminished.
If I were to make a game analogy, I would say that clarity is analogous to all-encompassing skill, and depth or other subcategory is analogous to what clothing the players wear or what the cheerleaders do. The game will be won by whoever has the most skill. The cheerleaders cannot give an incompetent team the win. |
kren0006,
I have reservations about the new GaN. It seems tempting from the tech talk, but I found the Merrill 114 very warm compared to my Mytek Pascal based amp, and Rouge IceEdge. I surmise that the majority of this group and many of Jay's YT listeners might have found the Merrill preferable to his Mystery amp because of the former's high degree of warmth. This warmth wasn't grossly euphonic as with tube amps, and the Merrill still had decent clarity.
Another example is the new LSA Voyager GaN (see that thread). I never heard it. YYZ owned it, liked it, but still found it warm compared to his Benchmark AHB2 which he still says has the highest neutrality and clarity of any amp he has tried.
Since you seem to want warmish amps to go with your Spendor speakers, you should strongly consider the Voyager GaN. At $3k, it probably would beat everything else you are considering for power, clarity combined with a little warmth, offering best sound and also great value for you.
|
One other point before we close this discussion. Outside of audio, do you think that clarity is less important than other matters? Do you like politicians who lack clarity and mislead people? Phones nowadays have internet, flashlights and other apps, but the most important function-- sound clarity-- has deteriorated, making it harder to get the message across. Isn't it annoying to say "what?" to someone who is mumbling their words with low clarity? Music delivers a sound message in the form of words in a song, or several complex instrumental rhythms interacting with a melody. The message must be as clear as possible. I don't believe this is a minority view.
|
WC,
How does the ref 6 compare with the Rowland Corus, both with Merrill?
RIAA,
You're right about the lack of a real reference with coked/cooked rock recordings. With unamplified classical music, recorded relatively naturally, accuracy is more meaningful. Although I was never present at any classical production, we all know what voices sound like in real life daily in all kinds of environments. This makes it easier to use classical recordings as references.
|
On another subject, obviously youtube videos have poorer sound quality overall than the original source. However, if a system has bloated and excessive bass, then the YT video played on small speakers might have less bass, which would make it sound better in only that one aspect. Ironically, the tonal balance may be better in the video than the live system in the room. Of course, the clarity and total information content would be inferior in the video. I hope WC gets the Maggie speaker, which I am familiar with, having heard many models over the years. Whatever speaker is about to be unveiled, he is unlikely to immediately get rid of the Wilson, so it would be nice to compare the new speaker with the Wilson on the video, with the same other components and music.
Maybe WC and other listeners familiar with the sound of Wilsons can talk about the specific differences between the system sound of the Wilsons vs the videos, rather than saying the obvious, "they don't compare, etc."
|
ghosthouse,
Thanks for relating your experience with Merrill. I met him at the friendly gathering at the VPI house. As a nice gentleman, he held Mat Weisfeld's toddler daughter.
|
Speedbump6,
I have had exactly the same experiences of being fooled that the background noises of the recording are coming from outside. |
WC,
Many people debate whether the preamp or the power amp forms the dominant character of the whole system. Tube preamp, SS power amp, vs SS preamp, tube power amp. So far, you found that the ref 6 into the Merrill gives sweet sound. My guess is that this will also be the case with the Christine into the ARC 160S. As far as compatibility is concerned, as long as the input impedance of the power amp is more than 10x the output impedance of the preamp, this should be fine, as is the case here.
|
WC,
I might guess that you are methodically on a quest to try the best planar speakers. Moving up to the Maggie 30.7, I am intrigued with its design. The narrow single panels, when placed on the inside, contain HF and middle and upper midrange freq. Toed in to face your head, they would provide ultimate detail and focus for this model. The large panel which is the width of the 20.7, provides the huge bass that you are seeking. My only reservation is the huge inflation of the lower midrange from that large panel. Deep male voices might sound inflated compared to higher pitched female voices. This would need to be heard to properly judge. So this 30.7 has the potential to give everything--clarity, focus, detail, and fullness of bass. I will be hearing the latest GTA with Steve soon, and still predict it will win on all counts, for planars at least.
|
WC,
Agree with everything except my Bryston. Trust me, my Bryston is unlike the other Brystons you have heard. As RIAA says, don’t judge anything unless you have heard it, and I would go further to say, unless you have heard it at home in your reference system. For detail and crispness, the Bryston is way better than the Merrill 114. My Bryston may even better any Gryphon for the qualities I want. The 114 has other qualities that appeal to a larger audience than my Bryston, I’ll grant that. If the 114 gave me the sound I wanted, I would have gladly spent $22K for the 116, which I believe is the best value in the Element line (although these amps are getting much lower prices on the used market).
But can you say that the Colosseum smokes the 118? Let’s just hear your ratings on the 118, and also the A/B of these 2 amps.
If you eventually get the GTA speaker, it is so efficient that the Gryphon Essence with its low power rating will have plenty of quantity and quality for that speaker. Who knows, just as my little Bryston is superior in quality to the bigger Brystons, the Essence may have equal or greater quality than the Mephisto. Also, even the Mephisto doesn’t have the high power of the top Pass or Dag amps, except for peak power bursts, so quality is what counts.
|
WC,
Please elaborate on the tonal differences between the Odin 1 and Merrill speaker cables with the 118's. Don't go back to assuming that more expensive means better. Please try no.16 or 18 zip cord for speaker wire. You have pennies to lose, and will find that midrange/HF detail will be better than any speaker wire you have tried. Bass will be tighter, but you probably won't like zip's lack of fullness that you crave. The ARC amp using zip will narrow the gap in detail with the Merrill using other speaker cable.
|
I like what I hear so far. The sound is leaner, crisper and less full than the Wilson. The guitar twangs are particularly tighter. My tastes in music are away from deep bass, and towards small groups like chamber music, string instruments like guitar, violins, etc. Maybe the smaller sound with thinness is exacerbated by the small computer speakers on my iMac. I get the feeling that the overall sound in WC's room is fuller than on the video heard on my computer. I'd like to hear from people who know Wilsons and can compare to what they hear on their modest computer audio. Still, it is premature to compare the new speaker to the Wilson, because of positioning and break in effects.
|
You guys that are skeptical of zip just because it is cheap, or that thicker wire conducts more current, need to just try it. My theory is that much of differences in wire relate to tonal balances as if they are tone controls. Zip will have a lighter tonal balance and emphasize detail over fullness compared to other wires. I have tried numerous wires over the years on different speakers to know this to be true. The Lamborghini analogies are not applicable. I guarantee that zip will increase the detail and tightness of your ARC or other tube stuff. Possibly the Mapleshade thin wires are even better than zip for clarity and detail. The Mapleshade designer has made the same observations as me about the murkiness of thick cables. Their upscale line, Omega Mikro is still much cheaper than many other companies mentioned here.
You ignored me last year when I mentioned Merrill, although Guido deserves the credit for first bringing our attention to that. Now you proclaim Merrill to have the most transparent and accurate sound. I will audition the 116 soon. Just try zip, likewise.
Incidentally, grey9hound is likely right about repeatedly recommending the Tekton Impact line of speakers. Ric Schultz, aka ricevs, the respected tweaker, whose $2200 amp EVS 1200 likely kills most expensive amps according to a few owners is enthusiastic about the Moab, a $4500 speaker in the Tekton line. I have not heard any Tekton speaker, but I like the concept of having small fast tweeter drivers cover a large range down to the lower midrange.
|
Why don't you just open your mind-- what do you have to lose but a little time snipping zip? Well, I opened my mind recently when a dealer I bought Nordost Frey 2 RCA interconnects from suggested that I give the Frey speaker cables a try. I still like the definition of the interconnects, so I wanted to try the speaker cables. Nothing but a disaster, like a foggy veil that forces you to drive 20 MPH instead of 60. My fast little Bryston 2.5 B SST2 amp slowed down to an old school murky tube amp like the Dynaco Stereo 70 I once had. That bad, I'm not kidding. With zip cord, your ARC will have more detail and retain its musicality. If you want more prestige, go for the Mapleshade thin cables which I will hear one day.
Too bad--it's your loss.
|
The better separates could include the LSA Voyager GaN for $3k instead of Luxman for $30k. The only risk for the Voyager is a re-stocking fee of about $600, so you will want to audition it from a private source. Not a bad proposition even with the re-stocking fee, considering the overwhelming value that it represents. Contact yyz for his further thoughts, although he sold his modded Voyager to cascadesphil I think. So you can contact cascadesphil. Either of them, and the numerous posters on that LSA thread will give you lots of info.
|
What fun! The new speakers are not seen, but are likely closer to the side walls with wider separation than the Wilsons. What I am now hearing is more brilliance (than the Wilson) in the upper midrange and HF, but relative muddiness in the lower midrange and bass aka incoherence between top and bottom. The muddiness will go away once the speakers are away from the walls, closer to each other. The Wilsons are optimally set up, so that gives them the advantage for coherence in all freq ranges. The new speaker, being cheaper, probably has smaller midrange, bass drivers and cabinet enclosure, which gives it a smaller, thinner, less full sound than the Wilson. If they are Tektons, the midrange drivers are actually very small, like tweeters.
Pending better setup, my impression is that the new speaker does better overall in WC's modestly sized room, whereas the Wilson would be more enjoyable to me in a much larger room than in WC's present room. The new speaker might be lost in the larger room. Since I like small scale music, I would prefer the Wilson in a larger room, but since WC and others like big, full sound, they would prefer the Wilson in the present room compared to a larger room.
I agree with grey9hound's remarks about "full, thin, muddy." To solve the problems of which sized room is optimal for a speaker, grey's past mention of the importance of the Lyngdorf room correction system is particularly apt. This might outweigh the intrusion of electronics from the Lyngdorf.
Break in is a factor, but most important is proper positioning of the new speaker, so the Wilsons should be out of the way while we evaluate the new speaker.
|
Concerning dogma, that is especially prevalent among high end cable companies whose diverse technical theories about what is ideal makes your head spin. What a product sounds like has very little to do with this dogma. The whole purpose of all the A-gon threads is to get unbiased listener feedback about how things really sound. I am not an engineer and am not pushing any technical agenda or dogma--what I discuss is solely based on my own listening over 50 years of experience in music and audio. I suggest that audiophiles get the opinions and listening impressions of non audiophile friends with musical expertise. They are only concerned with sound and not their egos about their big investments in prestigious brand names. The non audiophile musical experts will confirm what I have found in my listening.
|
I had the Futterman H3AA OTL with the beam pentodes in the early 80's. I saw him at his bench then.
|
justmetoo,
I pointed out the positives and negatives. Wait until they are optimally positioned. Playing with amps and cables should wait until they are positioned properly.
|
I hope you still have the original Shunyata Denali so you can compare it to the new version 2. My original Denali, a few years old, may have lost its magic compared to the WOW effect in the beginning. The proprietary materials may have aged or broken in, so be careful of the initial WOW effect which may wear off in time.
Probably D'Ag Momentum monos. I doubt you are stretching for the Relentless.
|
WC,
You said "the mids gained far more body and articulation." Usually there is a tradeoff between body and articulation. Tubes and SS like Pass that sound like tubes are strong in body, but weaker in articulation. At the other end of the spectrum, SS like Merrill are stronger in articulation but may sacrifice body. So how do the Pass and Merrill compare for articulation, detail, clarity? |
ricevs,
What specific sonic effects do the PPT bring? Are they system dependent? |
Congratulations on getting the Maggies. My 1st audiophile speaker in 1978 was the Tympani 1D--talk about huge soundstages. I have heard the 3 series--3, 3A, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6. The 5 foot tall 1/4 inch ribbon tweeter is probably the best tweeter in the world for HF extension and smoothness--you will love it. The main problem with these tall wide panels is that the midrange and bass panels are not as fast as the tweeter, so integration has always been a problem with the Maggies. Images are bloated and lack focus. To improve focus and clarity, I suggest using the tweeters on the inside. Toe-in the speakers so the midpoint of the large panels is facing you. The narrow tweeter has excellent dispersion, but the much wider large panels have much less dispersion, so toe-in is needed. Allow many feet between the outer edge to the side walls, and at least 8 feet from your front wall to get maximum spaciousness and detail. With your Neolith you learned the importance of providing more distance from all walls. Fortunately, your room is fairly wide so you can do this. This speaker really needs a larger room to be at its best. Perhaps reverse the speakers so the tweeters are on the outside and move the panels closer together, to keep the large panels away from the side walls as far as possible. This will tighten up the bass and maybe provide better integration with more coherence. Inches really matter, so panel placement is more critical than with dynamic speakers.
Many years ago, I heard the original 3 and model 20. The 20 was the first model to have the ribbon midrange, compared to the planar magnetic midrange of the 3, so I awaited this with eager anticipation. But the 20 was too big for the room, and it sounded bass heavy and rolled off in HF, so I much preferred the smaller 3, which was still pretty tall and wide. If you find that even this 3.7i overwhelms your room, try the small LRS for merely $650 retail. It still is substantially sized, and will present a moderate sized image. I haven’t heard it yet. Don’t laugh at its cheap price.
But for your ultimate speaker, I think you would enjoy the GTA. I know you said a while ago that you wanted to try panels, so this 3.7i is a good move. But the GTA version I heard 2-3 years ago is superior to any Maggie I have heard, and Steve tells me that the latest version is far better. It is more room friendly because it is narrower than the Maggies. You don’t absolutely need subwoofers, if you can accept the Maggies’ 32 Hz, and the GTA’s 40 Hz. Since speakers are hard to sell without losses, I would settle down with GTA and have your fun with sources, stands, electronics and cables. |
WC,
Accept the Pass for what it is, if it is a used unit and broken in. There is a house sound for all Pass stuff, with minor variations, even though the XS300 may do the most good things of any Pass. I have the impression from your comments so far that it is powerful, but not as tight and neutral as the Merrill 118. Pass's detail is beautiful, but not as revealing of "warts and all" information compared to Merrill. That's what's missing. I suggest NOT pursuing the ARC ref 10 because that will increase the vagueness. The ref 6 is more detailed, so helps bring out the detail of the Pass. The Pass xs preamp will probably be better than ref 6 for beautiful detail, but probably not match the Merrill Christine preamp for this. Right now I think you are getting close to the best from the XS300, unless you want to return to soft, euphonic sound.
|
How would you describe the tonal character of the DAVE vs Tambaqui?
|
WC,
No doubt that the XS300 is the best amp from Pass. But this is uncertain because I don't recall whether you heard the other Pass amps with the Merrill Christine preamp and also your neutral Esoteric source. The neutral/detailed Esoteric plus Christine are bringing the purest signal to the XS300 which bring our the very best from it. When you try the Ref 6 and Mac preamps with the XS300, you will know more. As you say, the XS300 is already tube-like, so the Mac and ref 6 will probably yield some softness and vagueness. Aside from the bass, how does the Merrill 118 compare to the XS300 for midrange/HF using the Christine preamp? This may take a while for you to answer, since you are still romancing the XS300.
|
WC, you said, "Musical/smooth/sweet- amp you can’t change its dna no matter what other components you buy. It will always sound this way." I agree 90% with this, But your next sentence, "You can use a lamp cord as a powercord and it will still sound the same" I differ a little. My experience is that large diameter speaker cables, and Nordost Frey 2 speaker cable made the sound heavy and veiled compared to lamp cord. Still, back to my lamp cord, I rejected many amps which sounded sweet and rolled off.
|
WC,
Thanks. Your observations explain a lot. In general, I believe longer decays are due to more resolution in midrange fundamentals and their high harmonics, or HF. But your statement that the XS300 has more emotion, romance and their own flavor implies that it is more tube-like and has less HF. Indeed, this is something to think about more, as you live with both Pass and Merrill amps and try them with the various preamps you already have. Maybe "speed" is an artificial criterion, but resolution and tonal characteristics at all freq are the more important criteria. It's really about the music. How much of the enjoyment of a certain piece of music depends on how much detail is revealed, or how much is related to any sounds you enjoy, even if the sounds are more blurry. |
The common audiophile definition of "musical" is sweet, slightly rolled off sound which makes the music more pleasant to listen to. However, the literal definition is "revealing all of the music." The latter is what I want. Some parts of live music are startling and even unpleasant, like the sharp bursts of trumpets, HF triangle percussion, etc. These startling qualities must be revealed fully by the audio system in order to have the feeling of live music. The startle factor never crosses the boundary into distortion/harshness either in live music or the ideal system. To avoid harshness, keep the volume sane--realistically loud if appropriate but not blasting. Even if the system is musically perfect at realistic natural levels, it is not musical when blasting. Don't use sweet electronics so you can blast volumes--2 ways you kill off the true musical information via sweetness and blasting.
|
I follow similar principles just outlined by technik. If you want heavy bass and bloated images, place the speakers close to the walls and far apart from each other. That yields artificial virtual reality. But if you want more clarity and focus, have more space from all walls, and place the speakers closer to each other. There will be less stereo separation but more focused realistic image size.
|
WC,
Now put the Merrill Christine + 118 or the Christine + XS300 on the Denali and see what you are now deficient in--MORE of the same improvements you just noted, "the bass tighter, the clarity improved tremendously." This has been my experience with the original Denali, but its effects may have worn off, or I am used to them, I don't know. Do you still have the original Denali to compare to the new version?
|
WC,
Seriously, the Luxman M900u amp would sound tighter, less sweet, and faster with lamp cord. No, I haven’t heard the Lux, but with every amp I have used, lamp cord has this tonal character, compared with fat cables or ribbon shape cables like Nordost Frey 2 or Straight Wire I heard. Straight Wire was David Salz’s company before he founded Wireworld. Straight Wire was nice, better in tonal brilliance and detail than many fat cables, but compared to lamp cord it was still sweeter with HF rolloff.
Since you no longer have the Lux, try lamp cord with any other amp you now have. Don’t sneer at lamp cord just because the audio community that loves to spend money and high end dealers who sell expensive wires hate it. You are now seeing the value in modestly priced speakers like the Maggie, and amps like Sim 860A V2, etc. The only negative about lamp (zip) cord is less quantity and fullness of bass, for those who go for that. But the bass is tighter with zip. Spend a dollar, and see for yourself.
Mapleshade’s designer of very thin speaker wires agrees with my sonic observations about the negative sonic qualities of fat speaker cable. A friend sent me some, and it is very close to my #16 zip cord. So you could spend a dollar for zip, or a few hundred bucks for Mapleshade if you still think that the cheapest cannot be superior to higher priced alternatives.
|
I am studying all the threads on Perfect Path Technologies, whose products ricevs recommends as mind blowing. The Omega E mat at $900 for two, according to 1 user, made his usually duller tube amp snap to attention and equal the speed of his SS amp. The flagship product, The Gate, at $5000 needs to be installed/wired into your fuse box. Without the needed technical info, they can't get UL certification, so for safety reasons it is problematic for me. But the other products which are noninvasive ought to be tried.
This should probably be your next move, no matter what other components you use.
|
Ricevs,
You are correct that if I haven't A/B'ed the 114 and 118 side by side, I don't really know precisely. But my impressions of the tonal character of the 114 match reviews of the 116 and 118, once you carefully read the reviews.
What are the sonic characteristics of your modded Purifi amp vs your EVS1200? Of course, the power rating of your EVS is higher, but how about the clarity/resolution comparison?
|
Ricevs,
I respect your knowledge about wires, and your track record of modifying things with different wires to get more clarity in the sound. I am not technically competent to understand why zip cord actually sounds clearer, leaner, tighter than most fat speaker cable, despite zip's low quality materials and construction. I read about Nordost's superior construction and materials, but was completely baffled at how the Frey 2 sounded so veiled. There are many pseudoscientific theories from cable designers whose products sound veiled to me. Maybe you can help me understand the technical basis for what I hear. Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade has the same observations of the sound as me, but he doesn't offer any convincing explanations as to why his wires sound the way they do. Have you listened to Mapleshade speaker wires, and zip for yourself?
|
WC,
I have no experience with using 2 bridged mono amps vs the original stereo amp, but your observations on how the Hegel H30 lost sound quality when bridged, makes sense. Bridging uses double the circuitry, so should be expected to sound veiled compared to the stereo which uses less circuitry. But then I don't understand why the Luxman 900u retained the quality when bridged. Maybe there is a difference in how the Hegel and the Luxman are bridged.
I agree with the tips of C Ab about using the Maggies. After break in, don't use the resistors on the tweeter. This tweeter is probably the finest for extension and smoothness, so it would be a shame to reduce its output with the resistor. Many dynamic speakers have crude tweeters which sound harsh, so many people tone them down with resistors or HF controls. There is no need to do this with the Maggie--even grey9hound liked it without knowing it is a Maggie. In the end, your Maggie will give you everything you want in upper midrange and HF--clarity and smoothness. Even if you want to blast off, you will be able to use the most revealing amp to get excitement without fatigue. I do agree that the midrange and lower freq need work, so keep the panels far away from the side walls and closer together than you usually listen, to get best focus and least inflation/bloating of images. Unlike C Ab, I would maximize the distance away from the front wall, 8 feet or more, so they are most away from all walls to simulate the effect of having a huge room. You may have to sit closer to the back wall, which introduces the back wall heavy bass risk. You can see that this involves lots of trade offs, but you will be rewarded. |
Ricevs,
Thanks for your explanation of bridged. If the R and L channels are absolutely identical mirror images, then the bridged voltage will be 2x the regular, and bridged power will be 4x regular, or 6 dB. But in real life, all the parts are slightly different, so the R and L channels won't be absolutely equal. Then the summed waveform of the bridged will be different from the waveform of either unbridged R or L channel. Suppose there is a 0.1 millisecond delay--then a 10,000 Hz signal will totally cancel out. Other freq will be distorted to different extents. So I think that at best, if R and L channels are perfectly identical, the sound bridged will be equal BUT NOT BETTER in quality to the unbridged. In the real world with slight mismatching, bridged will be inferior. Perhaps when WC found the Luxman to have the same sound quality bridged as unbridged, the R and L channels were perfectly matched, whereas in the Hegel H30 they weren't matched as well.
Most of the time, when the music requires only a few watts, there is probably no benefit in going bridged. There is also the reality that bridged amps are not comfortable at lower impedances, so even if they are capable of much more power into 8 ohms, at low impedances they might sound worse in quality.
|
WC,
Even if you paid retail for GTA speakers, they are better in every way than any speaker you have ever owned, and offer great value. I was impressed by the version I heard at Steve's home in Massapequa years ago, and the current version is supposedly better. To save money, you could just get the basic speaker without the subwoofers. The basic speaker goes down to 40 Hz. You could judge the basic speaker on its own and add the sub if the basic speaker will be a keeper. Your small room will produce adequate bass from the basic speaker.
At the VPI house this weekend I will hear the MC Audiotech speakers. Harry Weisfeld very soon promises me a private session with new towers of the 105 dB efficient AMT drivers. These were at CAF, but I don't know the name. They will be about $10K.
How does the new Shunyata Denali compare with the original, if you still have it? |
I agree with grey9hound about the supreme importance of equalization. I go much further with my Rane EQ, used at all freq. Although I still want the most revealing amp, using a given amp with or without EQ makes MUCH more of a difference than differences between SS amps. This is generally true, although I couldn't get the snap/sparkle from the Classe D200 amp using the EQ at different settings compared to my Bryston 2.5B SST2 with my usual EQ setting. Also, my electrostatic speaker has a bass boost in the transformer circuit which makes the sound muddy in that area. So I reduce the bass with my EQ--problem solved.
BTW, I bought the tweaked Rane from Mrdecibel. MUCH more revealing than mine. There is likely no amp at any price that I could mate with my original Rane that would equal my present amp mated to the tweaked Rane. I give a shoutout to MrD for his great work and integrity.
|
thezaks,
Yes, many people fear that processing causes veiled sound with loss of sparkle. I was a follower of that audiophile religion for 15 years until I discovered the Rane ME60 EQ. Even set to flat, used as a line stage it was more transparent than the hyped Spectral DMC10 gamma preamp. Then when I boosted the HF, I got more sparkle than anyone could get with a million buck preamp without EQ. Now, with MrD's tweaked Rane which I bought from him for a mere $250, this has been the best money I have ever spent in achieving the most exciting sound I have ever had.
|
WC,
YES, speed with non fatiguing, natural detail. Regular dynamic speakers with cones and domes cannot do all this. Their tweeters might be excellent because they are relatively low mass, but the more massive midrange and bass drivers cannot keep up. The detailed dynamic speaker then shows fatigue, so many people seek refuge in sweet, rolled off electronics and cables. With the Maggie's low mass drivers, all of them, you can have the best of everything, using the most revealing electronics and cables. Once you live with the Maggie and tweak the positioning, you won't want to go back to Wilson or other flawed dynamic speakers. This will also free up a lot of money, so you can try other low mass driver speakers, like GTA or properly designed electrostatics. For now, this 3.7i is your reference. Keep it.
|
Sorry WC, you are wrong. My Rane EQ does more by miles for "soundstage, height, depth, imaging" (your words) than the Denali or changing amps, never mind $250 for the Rane vs $5000 for the Denali. Without the Rane, there is pervasive mud and fog which drastically reduces any "soundstage, etc" compared to using the Rane. Just open your mind to the possibilities. Grey9hound urges an open mind regarding Room Perfect as well. Certainly the Denali is very worthwhile--it's just that creative and careful use of the EQ has FAR more of an effect. I know because I enjoy both the Rane and Denali.
|
spinaker01,
Instead of insulting you the way you continue to do so at me, I post truthful observations. As I said, for 15 years I followed the audiophile dogma that phase shift EQ spoiled the purity of sound. The fact is that all purist systems without EQ are dull compared to the real thing. A very practical way to achieve sparkle and overall liveness is to carefully use EQ. It is certainly not sonically or technically perfect, but goes a long way towards reducing the problems with all speakers and room interfaces. For example, WC had the D'ag integrated which had tone controls. He boosted the HF with the Neolith speaker, and reduced HF with the Magico speaker to find the ideal HF tone to his liking. The Luxman preamp also has tone controls. These excellent designers had good sense of the utility of this EQ feature.
RIAA,
You have correctly advised everyone to listen personally to a component before writing about what something sounds like. People should listen to what EQ's actually do when handled judiciously. This and other threads are not technical engineering debates about theory, but real world personal experiences of well meaning listeners.
|
WC,
Speedbump6 mentions Chuck Miller, whose ID is millercarbon. Read his thread, "Tekton Design Moab." He answered some of my questions there. He is very enthusiastic and welcomes people into his Seattle home for listening. I'm sure he would gladly answer your questions.
Also, the latest Merrill bulletin has a comment by an owner of a Constellation preamp/power amp package. He says that the direct connection bypasses the input stage of the power amp. This results in better performance due to less circuitry but less gain (obviously). The same SPL can be achieved by a higher setting of the volume control. I like this design, where the best performance can be achieved by the 2 units that work together in this way. What did you find when you had the matching Connie pieces together, if you remember?
|
kren,
Your priority is full bass, and you think clarity is merely a subcategory. I can see why you favor dynamic speakers which are short on clarity and natural coherence, but do produce the huge/deep bass that Maggies lack. It is also possible that you never heard the ultimate potential of Maggies, which are much more difficult to properly set up than dynamic speakers. Years ago at a well respected dealer, I heard a Maggie 3 model banished to a small room, when the expensive speakers were showcased in their large room. That Maggie sounded like it was in a closet, closed down, as I expected.
WC,
Many people enjoy Maggies with low power amps, which still provide clarity. Maggies have clarity with naturalness at low volumes as well as high volumes. The challenge for you is to try the high powered amps and see if those high power amps can still produce the clarity of a low power amp when the music is not loud. The Gryphon Coliseum is not a high power amp, but it has the crucial clarity that lets the 3.7i shine. I assume even at this early stage, you appreciate the low level detail as well as the high volume presence the 3.7i has. But before you get all these amps, the priority is to tweak the 3.7i positioning, including reversing their positions so that the tweeter ribbons are on the inside. This will have greater effect than trying different amps. |
The record shows that WC emphatically said that NO EQ can improve soundstage, etc. He needed to be corrected on this point. The relevance of this discussion here is that judicious use of EQ has more effect on all characteristics of the sound than changing amps, preamps, power conditioners and cables. I have the experience to know this. Spinaker01 may be correct that his digital parametric EQ is better than my analog Rane EQ which is no POS but still enables much more benefit than anything WC has discussed or tried. MrD said the rest of it very well.
|
spinaker01, Agree, especially about keeping an open mind.
Grey9hound, I still use my 1995 Belles OCM 200 on occasion, which is better than many current amps for clarity and tonality. The 150A is a slightly later model, which is probably excellent. However, the latest SA 100 was rolled off compared to my OCM 200.
|
kren,
Hardly anybody has the ideal experience of hearing Wilson and Maggie each optimally set up in the same room. I pointed out how even this major Maggie dealer had them poorly set up in the small room, just because they are cheap. And they were driven by mediocre, cheap electronics. Just business. But WC is doing a valuable project by mating the cheap 3.7i with the best electronics he can find. It is a tribute to the excellence of the Maggie that it showed greater differences between the Gryphon and Dag than the Wilson did.
I have heard various Wilson models over the years at shows and well known dealers. The latest was the Sabrina in a room the size of WC's. It was so veiled that I had a hard time telling amp differences. I had to use only an extremely clear recording to tell any differences. Later, the dealer played a larger Wilson in a much larger room. The sound was better, but it was still hard to hear differences between amps. Judging from WC's videos, I think he has presented Wilsons much better than this dealer, but it is still apparent that the 3.7i has more lifelike snap on the guitar than the Wilson, which agrees with WC's overall finding of greater life and excitement from the 3.7i vs Wilson.
Try the zip cord yourself. Don't call it silly but just report what you hear, good or bad.
|
