WC,
Viber7 in his rave review of the Merrill 118, said his Chord DAVE has the most clarity/detail of any dac he has tried. How do you rate the Esoteric k1 in that area?
|
WC,
The latest Boulder amps are markedly superior to their predecessors according to Rich Maez, the sales director. Instead of trying the very expensive 3060, I would go for the still powerful new 1160. Mayoradamwest will get the 1160 very soon. Even at $28,000 retail, they would have excellent resale value if you didn't like it after a month. Better yet, Rich may be able to arrange a loan similar to Merrill. If not, it is still worth having a talk with him about your situation.
Back to the benefits of EQ. As you said, "there is some gear out there that sounds lifeless so i could see someone wanting to add little more sparkle or bass, etc." I agree with this, but I contend that ALL gear sounds lifeless, compared to live unamplified music heard at close range, where the main mikes are in most recordings. Faxer is incorrect in saying that EQ has no benefit in a properly designed crossover-less speaker. Crossover or not, this is irrelevant. The GTA is an excellent speaker, one of the very best, but all speakers benefit from EQ to enable them to approach the snap/clarity of unamplified live music. I could easily demonstrate this in a blindfold test. It will be obvious in ONE SECOND, unlike a typical A/B situation with different preamps/amps where the differences are much more subtle and you want to listen to lots of music before making a conclusion.
|
I recommend the youtube video by Mark Levinson linked by aolmrd1241 earlier today. I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment of the importance of EQ. His way is Master Class EQ done by the listener, my way is the less elaborate Rane, spinaker01's way is the digital EQ in Roon. The important thing is to use whatever EQ you have in a customized way determined by what sounds real to you, or pleasurable for the flavor you want in the music.
|
kren,
We have different interpretations of WC's remarks. Besides, words are inadequate to describe music. Time will tell how he rates the 3.7i against Wilson. WC has come a long way from the days when he implied that nothing that is cheap can be good. He doesn't need to join the chorus of corrupt dealers whose business interests say that more expensive means better, case closed. No dealer of Maggies and Wilsons will say that Maggies better reveal differences between amps than Wilsons. They will say that Maggies are merely excellent value for the money, but Wilsons are top banana.
|
In deference to psnyder's honest assessment of my audio choices, let me explain why I do what I do in more detail. Today, I played Handel's Messiah in an orchestra with chorus. As usual, I was overwhelmed by the power of the music, being immersed in it. The singers were a few feet from me. The immediacy of the sound brought such detail that the beauty brought tears that blurred my reading of the music in front of me. This intimate musical experience parallels the intimacy everyone has had with close romantic encounters, so I really don't understand why anyone would prefer their music laid back from a distance.
There is no speaker that comes close to this intimate live experience. Before I discovered EQ 25 years ago, my system was about as good as listening in the 5th row. The best conventional electrostatics without EQ are like the 10th row. The best dynamic speakers are like the 12th row or further removed from the stage. The best position for listening is just over the conductor's head. The next best I have experienced only a few times in my life, when I was standing to the left of the conductor, still immersed in the orchestra, from a standing position when I was the violin soloist. A little comedown from that is when I still play in the orchestra from a seated position. But the next best after that is the front row center in the audience, a significant deterioration from that. From the 2nd row and going further away, it is all completely unacceptable by my standards.
Using EQ, I had major advances in connecting intimately with the music. Let me be completely honest. Even my speaker, which is the best for detail of any speaker ever made (the only competition was from the Stax F81 and original Quad 57 which both have even worse practical problems than mine), is woefully inadequate to compete with the supreme naturalness, balance and detail of the intimate live experience I described. Judicious EQ goes a long way in getting intimate detail, even if the end result is highly flawed vs the real, intimate thing. For example, although I described the outstanding string bass recording in the Carnival of the Animals, the live feeling where the right speaker becomes the bass instrument, is only possible with my EQ settings. Without EQ, forget about it. But with EQ, the buzz on the string from the bow is almost exactly like live. The bass freq of the instruments are tight and with the proper growl, due to more revelation of the midrange and lower HF overtones.
I have no doubt that someone with interest in getting more musical revelation from most speakers could convert their dull 15th row sound into 5th row sound using judicious EQ. There would be certain tonal anomalies, but carefully done these anomalies are far preferable to the 10 blankets of veil without EQ.
|
WC,
You have reached a great milestone by saying, "i dont even find myself blasting things because it is quite enjoyable even at low volume levels." That means the XS300 is a great amp. Honestly, the speaker that does mostly everything best is the GTA. They are very efficient and one day you will find a lower powered amp that will beat the XS300 and give your tonal flavor, and you will enjoy all SPL's with the GTA. No need to spend big money on Magicos.
|
WC,
I like the positioning of the 3.7i closer together. So far, what do you think of the sound with the tweeters on the inside vs outside when you first listened? There may be a disadvantage of extreme toe-in, because then the tweeters will be much further away, and the HF may be rolled off. I'm not sure about this, so listening will decide. Right now they seem to be in good position. How far away are you sitting?
|
techno_dude,
Welcome back. In the spirit of an open mind, listen to the GTA speaker. It is superior to any dynamic speaker in every way. I don't know if there are any Canadian shows near you where GTA could be shown, but it is worth a trip to Massapequa, NY (Long Island) to Steve's house.
|
kren0006,
I have long thought about whether musical information is passing over my head in the 1st row. Certainly, it is reasonable to think that further back offers better balance of all the info. So I tried many positions at various distances, and found that further back offered more balance, but that balance offered deteriorated info of everything. All instruments were more veiled. Just read my previous post to see what I found are the best listening positions.
Mercury Living Presence made the best commercial recordings which offered everything I desire. Read the interesting article by Tom Fine on page 133 of the 2nd most recent Stereophile. His father, Howard Fine was the engineer behind those great recordings in the 1950's and 1960's, and his mother, Wilma Cozart Fine did the mastering work, transferring the analog tapes to CD after Howard died. Howard used a single microphone 10-12 feet above the conductor's head for the mono recordings, which sound astounding for their balance AND intimate detail. The later stereo recordings used this central mike, and a pair of spaced omni's close in front of the left and right orchestra. The mikes were Schoeps, which had a presence peak, a form of EQ. I was surprised to learn that no EQ was used, even though the recordings sound like EQ was used. My Neumann mikes are like the Schoeps, so in effect they used EQ.
So when I got my EQ in 1995, my inspiration was these great sounding Mercury's, which are still considered tops. I couldn't be intrusive with the orchestras and other ensembles I recorded, so my mike placement wasn't as ideal as from Mercury. I think you would agree that Mercury had it right. I did pretty well with my mike placement right behind the conductor's head.
|
The big shootout is between Boulder and Merrill for neutrality and clarity. This has never been done except by WC. First, the 2010 vs Christine preamps, then Boulder vs Merrill amps. I don't know why the flagship Boulder 3000 series has not been updated with the newest circuits which are in the 2160 and 1160. Anyhow, these evaluations should be historic, between the finest examples of class A/AB vs GAN class D. |
WC,
It seems that in the early going, you really like the Boulder 2010 for its neutrality (I guess that "mids are dead center" means neutral, not warm or cold) and clarity. No sterility or coldness so far. I forgot whether you previously found the Boulder 2060 amp sterile in your home system or whether you made that assessment at a show or dealer. So you might want to try the latest Boulder 2160 or 1160 amp. For now, see how the 2010 and Christine preamps compare using the Pass XS300, and then the Merrill 118.
Also, viber7 in his post about Merrill 118 and CH Precision, said that the CH had the most accurate depth presentation by its true revelation of an instrument 30 feet away as sounding like it is 30 feet away, instead of the euphonic inflation of depth like a football field. This concept of true-to-life soundstage describes the accuracy of a solid state Boulder vs euphonic inflation of tubes like Ref 6. I've never heard the Ref 6 but have experience with several tube preamps including ARC SP6B and tube amps to know what tubes do.
|
Guido,
We'll await WC's answer, but I suspect his 2010 is a used unit. The 2010 has been replaced by the newest 2110, whose circuitry is faster and has been long in development.
|
WC,
My Denali focuses the whole sound spectrum, creating a thinner sound but preserving the coherence. It is possible that you don't yet accept the thinner sound of the 2010 mated with the Denali, and prefer the more relaxed fuller sound without the Denali. I don't think the issue is Denali compatibility, but comparing the 2010 vs Christine under the same conditions, with or without the Denali, should resolve this question. It is also possible that even though the 2010 has lots of time on it, it may take days for the 2010 to achieve equilibrium, as Guido says. After this short period, you may find that you prefer the Denali on the 2010.
|
Grey9hound refers to the familiar equilateral triangle positioning. This is a 60 degree angle. I like a 30 degree angle, or 5 feet of speaker separation at a listening distance of 10 feet. Also, this gets the speakers further away from all walls, offering a more free, airy sound.
|
I have found that any speakers I have used, when brought closer together, will focus the image better and provide more accurate, life-like clarity. Of course, there is less separation and a smaller soundstage. Many people with panel speakers like Maggies will place the ribbon tweeter on the inside and the midrange/bass panels on the outside. The separation of the overall speakers is the same, but the less separation of the tweeters will focus the HF better.
Gradually bring the Focals even closer, like 5 feet apart. You will get highest clarity this way. The separation will be not bad, but you will find yourself closing your eyes, enjoying the clarity, not caring as much about where the sound is coming from.
|
Excellent. Now try the speakers a little closer to each other, which will increase the distance from the side walls. This will increase the same benefits you have achieved with greater distance from the back wall.
|
WC,
I wholeheartedly agree with your findings on the superiority of the Maggie to the Wilson. Since you love deep bass, it is remarkable that you find that the outstanding qualities of the Maggie elsewhere in the freq range vastly outweigh the advantage of the Wilson, which is only in the deep bass. You might want to try the separate deep bass panels from Magnepan. They still probably don't do deep bass as well as the Wilson, so I would appreciate the 3.7i as is, for what it does superlatively.
When I heard the original model 3 against the original model 20, the 20 had more bass, but much less HF content. A deeper tonal balance, not for me. I think the 3 offers an ideal tradeoff combining clarity with very good bass. You might feel the same way, now that you appreciate what the 3.7i can do. The 20.7 is probably too large for your room, the way the Neolith was. Who knows, in a much larger room, even I might prefer the 20.7 to the 3.7i.
|
pokey77,
I did have an open mind to speaker cables when a highly respected dealer asked me to try the Frey 2 speaker cables. He said first, make up fresh zip cord because maybe my old zip was oxidizing. But I found no significant difference between old and new zip. Then I tried the Frey 2. I couldn't stand the giant veiling compared to zip. If the zip was like 1 mile road visibility, the Frey 2 was like 50 feet in a blizzard. I agree with you that I should have been patient to break in the Frey for over 100 hours, but I couldn't imagine that such initial bad veiling would dramatically transform into clear sailing. Maybe I was wrong, but Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade has heard the same things about fat cables vs thin cables. I did try the flat ribbon Straight Wire cables, but I had similar findings to the flat ribbon Frey 2.
Why don't you try the zip to hear what I am talking about? You won't have to break them in if you can't stand their sound. Also, knowing my tastes, you realize that I don't have any dark sounding components.
BTW, how are you doing with the classical music selections I suggested? I am happy to present pieces with many other moods, depending on your initial reactions.
|
pokey77,
I did have an open mind to speaker cables when a highly respected dealer asked me to try the Frey 2 speaker cables. He said first, make up fresh zip cord because maybe my old zip was oxidizing. But I found no significant difference between old and new zip. Then I tried the Frey 2. I couldn't stand the giant veiling compared to zip. If the zip was like 1 mile road visibility, the Frey 2 was like 50 feet in a blizzard. I agree with you that I should have been patient to break in the Frey for over 100 hours, but I couldn't imagine that such initial bad veiling would dramatically transform into clear sailing. Maybe I was wrong, but Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade has heard the same things about fat cables vs thin cables. I did try the flat ribbon Straight Wire cables, but I had similar findings to the flat ribbon Frey 2.
Why don't you try the zip to hear what I am talking about? You won't have to break them in if you can't stand their sound. Also, knowing my tastes, you realize that I don't have any dark sounding components.
BTW, how are you doing with the classical music selections I suggested? I am happy to present pieces with many other moods, depending on your initial reactions.
|
sorry for the repetition, due to "application error" crap.
|
I look forward to your shootout between Merrill and Gryphon. Try both the Dag and Christine preamps with them. When Merrill let me use the 114, it already had 80 hours of time on it. Over the next 200 hours with it plugged in, I didn't hear any change. The tonal signature was the same, although I didn't play music for more than 10 hours. I'll share my scoring after you tell yours and compare to the Gryphon. Merrill said that the 114 is a little sweeter, and a little less detailed, than the 118.
BTW, even if the DCS Rossini was less pleasant than when adding a preamp, you might like its preamp section's neutrality with the 3.7i speaker. The smoothness of the 3.7i means that nothing will make it sound unpleasant. So you can also try DCS directly into the Gryphon and Merrill. There is a significant amount of sweetness from the 114 (oops, I gave it away a little), so you might be very happy with either DCS direct, Dag or Christine preamps into the 118.
|
WC,
We know all the Merrill stuff has been on loan from your dealer buddy. The Christine vs Boulder 2010 would be an informative comparison between 2 companies with a common goal of neutrality to see who does it better. The Pass preamp will most likely share the same character as all the Pass amps, which is warmth in various degrees. I don't think you will learn much from the Pass preamp mated to the amp. I have a hunch that if the Christine + 118 is too forward and aggressive for you, the 2010 + 118 might tone down the highs, especially since you said the ref 6 is brighter than the 2010. If you are considering a more detailed, neutral sound, then probable best bets are Christine or 2010 + 118, warmer would be Christine or 2010 + XS300 or Pass preamp + 118, and warmest would be Pass preamp + XS300. All possibilities to be settled by your trials, of course.
|
WC,
I know you want to try other speakers you can hear locally before you go for the GTA. However, all these dynamic speakers are a mixed bag compared to rising up to the highest level of purity with good dynamics with the GTA. Plus, the GTA is much cheaper than any of these other choices. You could just start with the planar/ribbon towers without the extra sub towers.
|
WC,
You asked, "how come you didn’t keep the Merrill since you like them so much?"
Answer--thezaks is on the right track. He is an astute reader. I will let you reveal your comparative findings on the Gryphon and Merrill 118 first. I don't want to bias your followers until you present the Merrill and Gryphon with these Maggies. Nobody else has done this, and I appreciate your work. I like how sometimes you present components as #1, #2, etc., so as not to bias us. I wish you would demonstrate an A/B of the Sim with the Merrill also, since the Sim is sanely priced and offers great value.
|
Wonderful sound with Dag at present. I'm not sure from the picture of the 3.7i, but it appears that they are toed in too much. If you were sitting 6 feet away, then the toe in looks right, with the midpoint of the midrange/bass panels crossing over at your head. Actually, if there are separate midrange and bass drivers (too bad the website doesn't have much technical info, unlike they used to), I recommend taking the midpoint of the midrange panels and aiming them to your head. This will clear up any midrange congestion you may hear. And please don't use any resistors on the tweeter or midrange panels, which remove information and take away brilliance.
Since you sit 10 feet away, decrease the toe-in as above. Please continue to use the 3.7i for consistency, and because they are more revealing of amp differences than the DAW. If you do all this tonight, and it will really be easy and quick, I promise you that you will be up ALL NIGHT with joy. You ain't seen nuttin' yet!!!! I hope you don't have a busy day at work tomorrow.
|
So what if the Alexia 1 is better than the Focal, or the other way around. The GTA at about $20K will beat any dynamic speaker for clarity, naturalness and compete in dynamic SPL's. I am not shilling for faxer, just telling it like it is.
|
I am sorry that several people here refuse to recognize that lifelong musical experience is worth more than thousands of trials of equipment most of which don't have any resemblance to live unamplified music. The laws of physics are more applicable than anyone's wishful thinking. Dynamic drivers are inherently massive and slower than ribbon/planar/electrostatic drivers. The most brilliant designers cannot make handicapped dynamic drivers perform with the clarity, coherence and naturalness of these low mass drivers. One does not need to listen to thousands of dynamic speakers to know this. I've heard my share in my lifetime. Recently I heard more recent designs like the Magico A3. Not bad, but nothing new to serve as an exception to my previous experience which is consistent with the laws of physics.
|
Ignore me if you want, but you lose by spending big money for poorer real performance--the goal of high fidelity to the sound of unamplified instruments and voices. The hate speech is entirely from my detractors. Any careful reader will agree. Actually, the few classical music lovers with real knowledge have mostly left this thread. Most of my posts are on other threads where I am respected.
|
My prediction is that the Merrill will blow away the Dag, from what we have heard already, and your previous comments on Christine and 118. You said the Dag is in the sweet camp. More interesting will be comparing the 118 to Gryphon, using any preamp or DCS direct without another preamp. Merrill has good clarity, great dynamics and smoothness, so let's see how it rates against Gryphon. I'll tell where I think the Merrill rates, from my own experience and your presentation, on the spectrum from speed to sweet, after you make your assessment.
Yes, we agree that the 20.7 has more bass and less HF emphasis than the 3.7i. I wrote earlier about these findings with the original models 3 and 20. The HF ribbon is probably the same in the 20.7 and 3.7i (too bad the website doesn't give much info), so the bigger size of the 20.7 tilts the tonal balance toward bass.
|
RIAA,
If you read carefully, I said, "spending big money for poorer real performance." I bet that in your successful career as a financial advisor/manager, you got clients into many good investments that were undervalued so they could later make good profits. The fact is that in audio, there are very few items that are true investments. The only investment value is if they provide long term enjoyment so you don’t care if they depreciate. The challenge is to get maximum enjoyment without blowing too much money. WC has good financial management by buying low, so he can survive another day to go for the next thing, just as an investor tries to buy low so he can preserve his capital. In that respect WC and I are similar. If I do find something for $30,000 that is truly superior, I won’t bother spending (wasting) $10,000 on something else which is merely good, although for $1,600 I got a near new Mytek Brooklyn Amp which beats almost anything I heard at home for much more money. But everyone has practical spending limits on audio in view of all the other pleasures of life. Even Bill Gates doesn’t have enough money for ALL the good causes he would like to support, so he makes his choices.
It is better to engage in productive positive conversation rather than return insults. Please take the hint, and thanks for listening.
|
RIAA,
I tried to engage in a dignified conversation with you, but you missed the point, still hurl insults, and are incorrect about "All you have is theory."
|
WC,
I appreciate your comparisons and analysis which are chock full of wisdom. Thanks. |
briano,
Professionals may bring valid measurements and one set of good ears to the table. But there is always the matter of individual taste. I happen to prefer the clarity of closer R/L positioning with toe-in so all drivers are firing at my ears, but realize that I am getting a smaller width soundstage. Other listeners value a wider soundstage, and speakers closer to the walls which gives more bass if they want that.
I agree about the importance of the best electronics you can get. Everything in the chain is important, and Linn used to say their superior turntable would produce better results on a cheap speaker than another turntable on better speakers. However, there are more differences between speakers than any other component, so I believe you should get the best speaker you can, and then optimize it with better electronics, etc. For example, horn lovers can do well with a low power tube amp which probably offers purer sound than high power tube amps.
|
WC,
Unfortunately, you cling to your belief that a cheaper piece cannot surpass the performance of a more expensive one. Except for deep bass, Maggies in the 3 series surpass the performance of probably all dynamic cone/dome speakers regardless of price. Come on, admit it. At the same time, the ML Neolith is a poorly designed electrostatic, whose overall clarity is likely inferior to the much cheaper ML CLX, although again, the CLX is deficient in bass. Even though I haven't heard either the Neolith or the Wilson DAW, I respect the design of the DAW for a conventional dynamic speaker and venture to say that its clarity exceeds the much more costly Neolith.
Huge panels, especially curved, are flawed designs because they create midrange bloating/less focus and HF smearing, so the only thing that the Neolith excels in is bass. Having heard the original Maggie 3 in 1985, and the original 20 a while later, and then the 3 and 20 in the same room, I can say that the 20 excels in the bass, but the 3 has greater clarity and focus. If someone prioritizes bass and fullness, then the 20 is better for him, but if someone can accept 35-40 Hz bass, then the 3 is better. This has nothing to do with money, although the 20 is more expensive because of more materials. For people with very small rooms, the new Maggie LRS for $650 may be the best Maggie product for their needs, which may work better than the 3.7i for them. Nothing to do with money, since both LRS and 3.7i are each outstanding values and outperform most very expensive speakers on an absolute basis, except for deep bass and crazy loud SPL's.
|
briano,
All audiophiles need therapists. We are all trying to do the impossible, which is trying to get mechanical devices to sound like we have real musicians at our command. The rich nobility in past centuries had resident musicians, but even they couldn't flip a switch and get musicians to produce on a seconds notice. Only therapists can help us, LOL.
|
WC,
Before you buy another preamp, I suggest loaning back the Merrill Christine preamp which appears to offer similar characteristics as the Boulder. It is much cheaper than the Boulder, so that would be an interesting shootout. Either way with Boulder or Christine, plus Pass XS300, you have a good synergy with the clarity of the preamp and the warmth of the Pass.
|
WC,
Re-reading John Atkinson's Stereophile review of the JC1+, he said that it is a smooth tubey-type SS amp with bass fullness, which is consistent with our findings, as well as the private poster who messaged me. But since JA is a bass head, he loved it. There is nothing you can do with the JC1+ to give it the clarity/snap/sparkle of Merrill or Gryphon.
Your descriptions of the Gryphon suggest that it rates higher than Merrill. Let's hear your numerical rating categories of the Merrill vs Gryphon.
|
The trustworthy Kal Rubinson from Stereophile just came out with his review of the $2500 Benchmark LA4 preamp, finding it the most transparent he has ever heard. It passes his straight wire test. If you can overlook Benchmark's contempt for audiophile cables vs professional cables, a great shootout would be between the Boulder and Benchmark preamps. Too bad you can't include Merrill at this time. Deal with Music Direct's 60 day free trial for the Benchmark.
|
Mayoradamwest,
WC is following a prudent budget nowadays. If the Benchmark LA4 equals the transparency of the Boulder preamp, that is a wonderful opportunity so he can spend money on better speakers, etc. Even you said the Boulder 1160 doesn't blow away your McIntosh amp, although it is superior. It is worth spending more money for better things, but the Benchmark ought to be considered.
BTW, does the 1160 have similar warm tonal characteristics as the McIntosh, or is it a different animal entirely, being neutral? |
I have heard Luxman M600A at home, so I have some idea of the excellent c900u + m900u. These are examples of somewhat warm sound from readings of users and my own experience. For clarity and neutrality, the Benchmark AHB2 is nearly the equal of my Bryston 2.5B SST2 which is far superior to any other Bryston I have heard and several expensive big name amps that I won't mention. So I know the Benchmark "sound." It should be competitive with the Boulder for clarity and neutrality. (Too bad the AHB2 shut down with my inefficient electrostatics).
WC, you have seen plenty of examples where lots of money doesn't buy the best. From your own reports here, the ARC ref 10 is cloudy compared to the cheaper ref 6. The not too expensive Merrill Christine beats the ref 6 for clarity and is competitive with the Boulder, but too bad you can't put that to the test now. Expensive preamps don't have to be paired with expensive amps of the same brand or other brands. Don't bother with a super expensive Pass preamp--your Boulder will probably still kill it, and the latest Boulder is probably even better. The reason is that as you described, the Pass is congested compared to the clear water transparency of the Boulder. Boulder's philosophy is neutrality/transparency but Pass goes for euphony even if the XS300 may be less euphonic.
Techno_dude is absolutely correct.
|
roysq, Nobody can possibly hear all the speakers out there. Even if you found friends or dealers with everything, they may not be set up ideally. The only way to truly know is to set up an individual pair for yourself in your own room. All this is totally impossible to do. But having a good theoretical understanding helps to weed out poor designs. I have not heard the Neolith, but I have heard the flaws in other large panels like Sound Labs. The worst speaker I ever heard was a huge flat panel Dayton Wright electrostatic about 4 feet square. That was in 1981, and frankly I was puzzled why, since I love the electrostatic concept. Then my experience with other large panels having similar muddy midrange and HF got me thinking. I found small stat panel speakers, and they had better precision, although less dynamic potential for loud SPL's. If you understand the frequency radiation patterns of capacitive microphones (stat speakers in reverse) off axis, and similar responses of stat speakers off axis, and then do a summation of on-axis and off-axis sounds coming from all parts of the large speaker diaphragm, you realize that the larger the panel, the worse the purity due to summation smearing. Any large speaker will sound better in the large room than a small room. However, multipath summation smearing will still be applicable in the large room. A correct time-aligned dynamic speaker like the Wilson can sound superior in clarity and everything else to a huge panel speaker, even though the low mass electrostatic/ribbon/planar magnetic driver is capable of more purity than the higher mass dynamic driver. The problem is design implementation. The Maggie 3.7i is a superb implementation that is the right size for most rooms, where its low mass diaphragms outperform the higher mass Wilson. The larger Maggie 20.7--I don't know whether the Wilson will beat it for clarity--maybe, maybe not. |
WC, Good luck with your external microphone. In my recording experience, it is very difficult to really capture the live spatial experience as well as the clarity. There are tradeoffs. Many commercial recordings with lots of spatial content are deficient in clarity because they have a distant perspective. Other recordings are upfront and immediate with fantastic impact and clarity, but everything sounds forward on the stage. The tonal character of microphones vary as much as speakers, because a mike is really a speaker in reverse. You might have fun as a recording engineer due to all these possibilities, but for youtube recordings on typical poor computer playback systems, it is not worth all the trouble. The weakest link is the computer playback system. That said, I still find your present setup useful for demonstrating some differences. |
Zaks made a valid point that Kal Robinson doesn't comment on very expensive alternatives, so the Benchmark LA4 could just be better than other preamps up to a certain price point. However, Kal's crucial finding is that in his bypass test, there was no difference in the sound. That makes the LA4 the perfect preamp if your goal is transparency and not another flavor of the month. WC could put the Boulder to a similar test. If it also shows no difference whether in or out of the chain, then it too is a perfectly transparent preamp. Then the LA4 and Boulder are equivalent, although there might be tiny differences due to impedance matching. The other slight variable in your ability to do this bypass test is precise volume matching of unity gain in the active preamps vs no preamp.
In principle, complicated, expensive circuitry can only cause problems, so the simplest, shortest signal path should produce the ideal of perfect transparency and clarity. The simplest signal path of the LA4 is a possible reason why Kal found other preamps to alter the signal and decrease the purity of the music.
Of course, if your goal is different--colored, flavor of the month sound, you can do all the tube rolling you want, etc. Then you can disregard everything I have said.
WC, judging from your comments about the Merrill Christine and your Boulder having similar neutral/transparent characteristics, I meant that they are competitive. Can you remember how the Christine sounded vs Boulder? One clue is that viber7 in his review of the Merrill 118 plus Christine, using his Chord DAVE, found that the Christine softened the sound compared to using the DAVE directly into the 118. So perhaps you can compare your source directly into your Pass XS300 versus with the Boulder in the chain. If you don't have a volume control, choose a piece of music which provides a comfortable SPL without the Boulder, and then re-insert the Boulder, adjusting its gain to yield the same volume. If there is no difference, then the Boulder is the winner of all the preamps you've tried. At worst, the Benchmark LA4 may be extremely close to the Boulder, but we don't know without trying.
|
ricevs,
Agree totally. Too bad many people who like to spend big money prefer to scowl at me rather than try what we both suggest, although I look forward to what yyzsantabarbara has to say with his comparison of Luxman with Benchmark.
|
kren,
I agree with you that WC says he is finding superb performance in the 3.7i that exceeds in most ways other speakers up to $20K. But why stop at $20K? And then he says, "I can easily hear the difference when going from a 80k speaker to a 37k speaker. It almost sounded as if I was listening to bookshelf speakers with a subwoofer but over time your hearing gets used to it and you don't notice it..." The fact is that anyone can easily hear the difference when going from a big Klipschorn to a $37K Wilson. But the K-horn is only about $15K, and for big/dynamic sound it kills the $80K Neolith as well as the $37K Wilson. The Neolith is still a hybrid dynamic/electrostat which has certain qualities that the K-horn doesn't have. My example here is not to glorify the K-horn, but to show that a speaker must be evaluated on its merits of design and ultimate sound quality, not on how much money it costs. Just show me a $500K dynamic speaker that exceeds the clarity and naturalness of the $6K Maggie, even if it has much bigger sound with 20 Hz bass. You can add a $10K or less DSP powered subwoofer to the Maggie and then beat the uber expensive speaker at everything.
|
WC,
Thanks for your clarification that you found the Boulder preamp more transparent than the Christine. Even if the DCS Vivaldi volume control lacks a little transparency (thanks to faxer's post that volume control is a critical problem in a preamp), it is what it is and will be a constant, as you try the DCS direct into your Pass XS and compare it to the DCS plus Boulder into the Pass XS. People talk about synergy when combining a ruthless component with a forgiving one, for example. But I believe if the Boulder is truly transparent, its benefit is not due to synergy, but the fact that it lets the other components reveal themselves better.
|
maplegrovemusic,
Agree, except "just transparency" is a big feat that few components accomplish. Colored, flavor of the month sound is much more prevalent and comes at all price levels. Much fewer women look great in minimal clothing vs many ordinary looking women who need fancy outfits with jewelry to look decent.
|
spinaker01,
Agree totally.
|
WC,
In what specific ways is the Boulder preamp superior to the Vivaldi? You can still do the bypass test using the Vivaldi + Boulder + Pass XS versus Vivaldi + Pass X. There should be no difference if the Boulder is perfectly transparent. Or does the Boulder introduce a slight coloration that you like?
|
kren0006,
What does "sound better" mean? To a lover of warm/laid back sound, it means something completely different than to a lover of clarity. WC himself has stated that he may be moving toward a clarity-oriented sound, rather than his former desire for euphonic oceans as with the ARC ref 10. From the context of his comments about the neutrality of the Boulder preamp sound, I suspect that he finds its detail/clarity to be better than the Vivaldi, although only WC can clarify what he really means. Another example of his new preference is the fact that he thought the Transparent wiring is too warm and that he prefers the clarity of the Nordost Odin.
So I suggest that people describe things in specific more objective terms rather than subjective, value laden terms like "better" and so on.
|
