WC,
What exactly don't you like about the Mephisto/ARC vs Merrill/ARC? Your voice on the video was soft, and maybe I missed it. Just be objective and describe the differences, before you go on a wild goose chase with preamps, cables, etc. I assume the Merrill and Mephisto had the same cables, so the intrinsic differences between the amps can be described. Don't retreat into your mixing and matching thing, because then you introduce too many variables. The Mephisto probably needs more break in time, or maybe the power line quality was so bad at the time you heard the Mephisto. I have had experiences with power line variations swamping differences between amps. However, I suspected something was up when you continued to evade our requests for comparative reviews of Mephisto and Merrill.
|
WC,
As a doctor, even though you never sought me as your doctor, I say you are right that although many patients come to see me after they have researched things, they come to see me for my experience and judgment because I have read the internet also. Just like audio journalism, medical research is often biased, so I always ask other doctors I know about their firsthand experiences. Your listening experiences are as valid as my medical experiences.
However, I have sympathy and concern about your feverish audio pursuits that can create financial ruin and emotional distress. I just point out a few examples of a big audio industry myth that has misled you (not your fault). That is, the most expensive flagship of a product line MUST be better than the lower models. You loved the Colosseum, and assumed that the flagship and newer Mephisto must be better. As of now, you are unhappy with the Mephisto, and I hope you can correct this situation. Next, you considered the Sim 860 V2 to be an outstanding amp in both absolute performance and value. You have NO basis for thinking the flagship 888 MUST be better, just because it is more expensive and powerful. After you hear it, that is another story. And I already noted how the more powerful and expensive Bryston 4B SST2 was inferior to my Bryston 2.5B SST2 for clarity. I won't be surprised if the less expensive and powerful Gryphon Essence is better in clarity than the Mephisto.
It just seems strange that it has never happened that when you got an amp, you had such high expectations which were then dashed when the reality of listening kicked in. It is not because the Mephisto is an intolerant race car that can only be driven by a trained professional driver. The Merrill is also a high performance machine, but it sounds good with any ancillary components.
Certainly, sell the HD preamp and Momentum S250 amp. They are overpriced euphonic pieces, and you are done with them. Do you still have the Christine preamp? If not, the ARC ref 6SE is a great preamp. Make room for the Boulder 2160. I was even considering the Boulder 1060 for MSRP $22K which still has enough power for a medium efficiency speaker. Someone on this thread is happy with the 1160. Since the speaker is the major determinant of sound and therefore where more of your money should be spent instead of on ancillary components, you ought to consider what I think may be the best dynamic speaker at any price--Tekton Design Moab with all Be tweeters for a whopping $14K. Unbelievable--follow the thread by millercarbon on the TD Moab, and see my posts there. Klh007 has provided a lot of great insight there. Nobody other than the designer has heard the Be version. You could be the first! At $14K, there is little risk. This speaker would give you everything you want. I will see how good the latest GTA planar magnetic ribbon speaker is for $25K. With either the Moab or the GTA, you won't need much power.
|
WC,
Also, move the JC1+ which is not in the same league as anything else you have. Keep the Maggie which is your reference for clarity which comes from low mass drivers. Imagine how the Maggie will dazzle you when the Mephisto is fully broken in.
I liked the latest video. The midrange and HF percussion have excellent clarity and sparkle. I hate the muddy artificial bass which I believe is the fault of the recordings and not the Mephisto. The voice is neutral and focused. Without hearing the A/B of the Mephisto and Merrill, these are my impressions, but you know better because you are hearing it directly.
Just a wild guess, but I believe your jitters is merely a case of the Mephisto needing more break in. Why don't you just put your best Nordost and AQ Dragon cables in there, and let the Mephisto break in? You will be confused if you try other things, and then you won't be able to judge the effects of those things vs the effect of just letting the M break in. My guess is that the Mephisto is a very detailed amp, which may sound dry before adequate break in, especially with Nordost. Once all the detail and neutrality comes through with Nordost and Mephisto, you may be dazzled by the sound, but still yearn for some euphonic warmth. The detail and increased musical information will grow on you, provided you don't bleed your ears by blasting. Even I went through a brief euphonic tube phase many decades ago, and at first I was uncomfortable with the drier SS sound, but the improving SS taught me that I should live with it and learn from it. Then there was no going back to warm sound because a lot of the music was buried in the warmth. |
WC,
As I said, yesterday's video sounded great except for the bass, which is likely due to the recording, not the system. All this talk about nebulous things like synergy is confusing and misleading. It certainly led me to judge the Mephisto negatively, because all I heard was your frustration. It is better to take a recording, mention specifically what you like or dislike about the instruments and voices. In other words, speak the language of music rather than totally unrelated things like cars and other generalities. If you want to be more enlightening, you might say for example, "listen to the guitar on the Mephisto at 4:02 and 7:33 on the Merrill. I hear the guitar as X on the Mephisto and Y on the Merrill, etc." The 2 reference quality amps you now own are Mephisto and Merrill, so it is more useful to describe how each amp reveals the instruments. The Merrill has the advantage of more break in.
I give credit to techno's point (free of his negativity) that a great amp should sound good right out of the box with any cheap power cord or cable. Out of the box, it may have unexpected flaws, but it will have many great attributes. And since it has so much to offer, the tweaks will have greater effect than for a mediocre amp. This has nothing to do with money, but rather with performance. Money buys better parts and construction, but good thinking doesn't cost more than bad thinking. A well thought out circuit design with OK parts will sound better than a lousy design with expensive parts. One proof of this is the brilliant design of Tekton Design speakers, which use ordinary parts and sound superior to many speakers costing 10 times the price, according to all the user reports I read.
|
If your sound preferences are like that of psnyder (he likes to sit in the balcony at concerts, where HF are rolled off and lots of musical information at all freq is lacking), follow his advice.
If you crave the most musical detail and your standard is upclose near where microphones are, follow my advice.
These are two opposite ends of the sonic spectrum of preferences. The reality is that everyone has their own position on the spectrum. When Jay is in the neutral mode, he might be 80% in my camp and 20% in Paul’s camp. When Jay is in the laid back tubey camp, he might be 60% in Paul’s camp. Only 60%, since Jay’s XLF speaker is very detailed, so even very warm electronics on the XLF still yield more detail than most people's speaker here with neutral electronics.
|
WC,
Thanks for the 2 videos with the same music, so it is easy to compare the ARC/Mephisto with Dag/Mephisto. I heard significantly more clarity on the Dag/Mephisto. Did you try the Christine/Mephisto combo? My guess is that would provide the most clarity, transparency, speed, etc. I recall you said this about the Christine with other amps in the past. I hope I can stop you from selling off the Christine. Don't you want to try it when the Mephisto is well broken in?
As you know, I don't believe in synergy, which is really about mixing warmish and drier stuff together in some magic recipe. If you strive for ultimate clarity, that magic recipe will compromise the clarity. Since you have top level components, there will be no shortcomings in going for clarity, provided you break them in and don't blast the system at unnatural levels, which in itself compromises everything. In my approach, more flaws are revealed, but also far more good things which is the greater appreciation of the musical info. I hear the flaws and can easily ignore them, because I am enjoying more of the music.
If you want to say that there is great synergy with ARC/Merrill, that is only loosely true because both are on the sweet side, so there is a consistency if one seeks that type of sound. That is not really synergy--it just is additive sweetness. I believe that the Dag HD/Mephisto is really additive clarity and astonishment, not really synergy. Christine/Mephisto might show even greater progress towards the ultimate quest for the same. |
speedbump6, You may not realize that lamp cord has clarity, even if the fullness of bass is reduced. Why don't you try zip cord? |
Ricevs makes sense. Soft rubber footers probably yield soft sound. Ricevs knows for sure. The stand is important since I actually heard the Dag S250 on the Artesania stand to have comparable sound as the Colosseum without stand. The new stand for the Mephisto probably will make the Mephisto even more revealing and tight, although the very heavy Mephisto may show less benefit with a stand than the Dag did. I don't know what kind of footers the Mephisto has. Merrill is smart to include good footers as part of his design. |
Nice video discussion of many topics. However, the revealing, transparent Mephisto is not the wild child. It knows what it is doing, and is trying to teach you to appreciate its honest transparency to dig more of everything out of the music, and move away from your sweet comfort food, all the previous euphonic pieces. For example, you said that the Mephisto showed the shortcomings of the ARC ref 6se, and the ARC couldn't keep up. That is true, because Mephisto, the master teacher, said to the ARC student, "you are dull, you mumble your words, and you have no place in my classroom where I teach clarity of thought and delivery. The truth is beautiful."
|
Jay,
I enjoyed your monologue. Congrats on your G Mephisto monos which I hope are keepers for you for a long while at least.
Although I value neutrality, it is still subservient to clarity in importance. Neutrality is the absence of favoritism for any freq, but it doesn't guarantee the highest clarity at any freq. Although you said the the M mono has the best bass of any amp you've owned, I'll assume that it also has the similarly highest clarity in midrange and HF, although you didn't get into that in this brief intro.
Likewise, my experience with some Nordost cables is that they have the highest clarity in all freq. Yes, most people including I find that Nordost has a brighter sound than other products, but this is a general characteristic of products that strive for accuracy/clarity. The human ear is most sensitive at 3-4 kHz, and Nordost best reveals everything at all freq. Most other products don't reveal HF overtones of natural instruments as well. It is true that some designers like Pass and the other sweet camp stuff you mention, deliberately give many euphonically oriented listeners what they want. However, Nordost's philosophy seems to be going for lowest distortion with highest accuracy. I don't think they deliberately design for HF prominence. It's just true that Nordost reveals everything with equal opportunity excellence in all freq. It may take you some time to realize that Nordost is doing what you like about M monos, and that they DO work well together.
The risk is that you continue to maintain that there is such a thing as "too much clarity." That idea will lead you to soften the M monos with sweet stuff like tubes, rolled off HF in cables, DAC's, etc. Yes, the M monos will expose the deficiencies of these other components, but this is a great opportunity for you to continue to build on the wonderful qualities of these amps with other similar components. In the past, you have advocated the "synergy" approach, which really is some combination of revealing and warm components that sends your soul to heaven. But you made the giant leap of admitting now that you are bored with that approach, and want to hear more of what your music has to offer, so the M monos is a great step, as were the other great steps you made by getting the XLF speakers and the 725 preamp.
I have known and worked with a few top elderly violinists, and have read interviews about other great legendary musicians who, despite having achieved great fame and wealth, still wanted to improve their musicianship. Maybe at age 80, their technical facility level had declined, but their subtlety of phrasing and timing continued to improve. They never said that there can be too much clarity or sensitivity. They still tried to improve despite their handicaps. I believe that's one of the factors in extending their productive life. Classical music is much more complex than you realize, and no performer or listener has fully re-created and appreciated everything it has to offer, respectively.
|
WC, Can you elaborate on the sonic differences between the Dag HD and the Christine? We know that Dag in general is smooth and euphonic, but not as much as ARC. I found that the Merrill 114 was smooth, detailed with some euphonic touch. Perhaps the Christine is similar. So it would be interesting to hear what you found with Dag HD vs Christine. I don't know how much listening you did with Christine + Mephisto. What were your findings with other amps? I just got an email that Merrill is coming out with a new Element preamp and phono stage. All of your preamps have been euphonic in various degrees, so if Mephisto is the most revealing/transparent amp you have had, then perhaps the Gryphon preamp may also have the same character. I do hope you can get it, but be prepared to be assaulted with the ruthless detail they may present together. If I am correct, don't soften if with euphonic cables. Since you like fast cars, go for the fast sound as well. Same reasoning goes for the potentially exciting, fast new Boulder 2160. Revisit your DCS direct without any preamp. I still say that all preamps inject some veil which decreases the clarity/transparency. You may have liked preamps with your other amps, but now you are in the big leagues with transparency/clarity from the Mephisto, and might really appreciate the DCS direct into Mephisto, and into Boulder when you get it. Of course, you will save big bucks by eliminating preamps. |
OK, but my point is that the volume levels are different, whether you are using the Christine or DCS direct, so it is hard to tell true differences. Besides, the bass quality of the Mi Viejo recording (not your system) is terrible, so I listen for the jangle and sparkle of the instruments that follow shortly. Don't get me wrong, I am routing for the Mephisto as it burns in. And I can't wait to hear the fully developed Mephisto and comparably transparent preamp on the Maggie 20.7, still your most brilliantly clear speaker, except for deep bass.
|
No walkback for me. The Mephisto is the only amp on this thread to impress me, although of course only based on the YT videos and WC's comments. Most of the other amps listed are euphonic expensive boat anchors, whose sound has been well described by WC. I can only speculate (without personal experience) that the Gryphon Essence and Sim 860 V2 have the sound quality I might like. These are best values to me. Before Mephisto, WC said that the Colosseum had the best sound, although probably not the best value. We'll see how the Mephisto develops, and he might even pronounce it to be the best value, because the sound quality leaves others in the dust. One or two posters on this thread have confirmed my experience with the Benchmark AHB2. Any snide remarks about zip cord are just as uninformed as anyone who says that component X is bad without having heard it. In case anyone wants to criticize my euphonic pronouncements about most of those amps, I have not heard them, but respect WC's descriptions of them as such. I am prepared to admit that the Mephisto may be #1. If WC lived closer to me, I would bring over my Bryston and we could listen together. Unfortunately, I would be unlikely to buy it, because I can't handle the Mephisto's weight by myself, and am wary of buying foreign stuff because of shipping for repairs, etc. |
WC,
No, after I bought my little Bryston 2.5B SST2, I tried the bigger 4B SST2, but it was inferior in clarity than mine. I didn't feel like trying the heavier upper models. Reviews suggested the heavier models had more euphonic sound, for which I didn't care to lay out money and likely be disappointed. Even though I could have returned them, I was beginning to wear out my welcome at those online retailers.
More important, you raise important points about whether you need to spend lots more money on better supporting components with the top notch Mephisto. Certainly, the expensive Nordost Odin/Valhalla loom would make more difference with the Mephisto than with a mediocre amp. That mediocre amp could be cheap or expensive. I may recall you said this with a Pass amp (or another brand) sounding good with any cabling. The fact is that a euphonic amp like Pass or Dag or Luxman will always sound that way whether you use Nordost, Cardas or cheap Kimber, Audioquest. Sure, there will be differences, but the euphonic quality will still be there. But the revealing Mephisto deserves to be supported with equally revealing cables, etc. My friend made interconnects with his secret twisting and soldering technique that was at least as good as the Nordost Frey 2 IC I have, so excellent performers are not necessarily expensive.
If you revisit the DCS direct, without an added preamp, after the Mephisto is fully developed, you may be surprised that this direct/pure route will deliver more detail/transparency than when adding the flavor of your chosen preamp. You may be breaking away from your flavorings, and moving to appreciate the pure sound of the Mephisto. Of course, this will save the big money of a fine preamp, as well as offer superior clarity and the like. A win win.
With high performance cars, more money buys more performance for the moving parts. At least I respect the car industry for engineering, although I disdain spending money for mere cosmetics that don't relate to aerodynamic performance. I disdain much of the high end audio industry, especially for products where cosmetics is a big part of the expense. However, it is possible to get top audio performance for modest money, whereas it is probably impossible to get top level car performance for modest money.
Even the Mephisto is much cheaper than the Relentless, which someone said underperforms the M. Who cares about the better looks of the Relentless, unless the owner wants to impress his fellow high class friends, instead of sitting down by himself and appreciating the music itself. By its nature, great music is an inner experience which transcends the social BS of impressing people with cosmetics. I would probably regard the Mephisto as a thing of inner beauty as I call it delightfully ugly.
|
Oops, I made a slight mistake. A poster said he spoke to someone who chose the top new Boulder over the Mephisto, Relentless and a few others, because he thought the clarity/detail of the Boulder was the best. I would expect the Relentless to have the same personality as the Momentum line, which is euphonic. WC's experience is that the Mephisto is the most revealing amp he has had. I like his open mind where he wants to try a new Boulder. Even the next to top 2160 amp would be a fascinating A/B with the Mephisto.
|
WC,
Sell off the JC1+ to help pay for the new Boulder. The Christine, too. You admit that DCS direct produces wonderful clarity.
Before I go to work, I just have to comment briefly on the 2nd to last video. At about 10-11 min, when comparing the Nordost Odin to AQ Dragon power cord, you say that the Odin offers the most clarity, but it comes at a price of brightness at louder volumes. Here's the principle--clarity across the freq range always leads to more brightness because more of the HF come through. There are no artificial peaks or edges. What you perceive as brightness with those edges, is really the lousy processed recordings you listen to. These recordings are processed so that teenagers with inferior speakers which are rolled off in HF, can get more snap. But revealing systems like yours reveal the poor quality of those recordings. If you listen to more honestly and naturally recorded classical music or some jazz like Chesky recordings, you would accept what I am saying. But even when playing natural recordings too loud, there is still some unpleasantness. Listen to the real honking horn of a truck. If it is too close to you and too loud, you get the HF unpleasantness as well.
Nordost Odin is king of the hill--they know what they are doing. If you want to listen to your processed recordings, you will still get more musical content at modest 85 dB levels than using other cables and components which enable you to tolerate louder levels. When I tried the euphonic Classe D200 amp, it could play louder than my little Bryston, but mere loudness was boring because the exciting musical details that the Bryston revealed were lost.
|
Techno, Technically, neither of us has heard at home the Dag HD, Christine, or Mephisto. Have you heard the Bryston 14B3 at home? If yes, how does it compare in sound quality to your Luxman M900u? I am placing a lot of confidence in WC's objective descriptions of the sound, to say that HD beats the Christine. He just said on the 2nd to last video that the HD is the best item in the Dag Momentum line. He previously said that Dag amps are euphonic, although the Momentum 400 less so than the S250. Someone here said the 14B3 is good but not top notch. Reviews suggest that the 14B3 is somewhat euphonic, and I agree with WC that most of the Bryston line is good but not great (exception is my 2.5B SST2). Look up the superb review of the $1500 new Orchard Audio GaN class D amp called BOSC. They may have renamed it. It is the type of sound I go for, if the reviewer can hear accurately and be honest. There are a few superb class D amps like this which are cheap, including my Mytek Brooklyn Amp, which probably outperform most of the dinosaur class A/AB euphonic amps discussed here. The Mephisto is a standout, the only amp I am impressed with, according to WC's findings. |
speedbump6,
Your provocative words, "I have a 14b3. No, it does not compare. Damn good amp, and great at its price point. But a mephisto beater it is not."
So what does the 14B3 sound like? What did you compare it to, and how did that amp sound better than the 14B3? Did you hear the Mephisto at home? |
The review of the Essence is interesting, but he only compares it to his MEMORY of the Mephisto and Antileon years ago. He is not of your high caliber, since he doesn't discuss the varying tonal qualities among Gryphons that others have mentioned, for example, the relatively euphonic Antileon vs more neutral Mephisto. For midrange and "feathery" HF, he finds the Essence to be equivalent to the mere $13K Plinius Reference class A. I don't think you would say that the Mephisto has "feathery" HF. If he found the Plinius bass rounded, then it is likely that the midrange and HF are rounded also, making the Essence just another euphonic amp. But your Mephisto sounds pure and extended in the entire freq range, according to your reports.
So this reviewer doesn't have the ears or judgment to tell me all that much. You will be in a position to do a more definitive review of the Essence, comparing to Mephisto. I'm sure Suncoast will be happy to bring over the Essence after you refine your Mephisto setup. |
WC,
Thanks for introducing me to that wonderful recording, Perhaps Love. Musically and sonically wonderful, even on lousy computer audio and phone speakers as someone said on your video comments. Sonically it is great because of minimal processing, yielding a natural sound. Even a regular resolution CD would sound great, provided there is minimal processing. This is the 1st time I have heard this recording, and I think you should use it when making decisions about what supporting components you favor with the Mephisto.
This recording will show that DCS direct will yield even more purity/clarity than the Christine or any other added preamp. With other recordings which are highly processed, I can see why you may prefer adding preamps and euphonic cabling, because you hate the distortions revealed by DCS direct + Nordost cabling + Mephisto. But with this pure recording, this purist combo would reveal much more beauty, as well as some relatively minor defects, so the balance of good and bad would be much more in favor of the good.
You probably have never heard an unamplified singer live close up. As an experienced musician, I have, and can tell you that the real thing is a mixture of good and bad, but the good vastly outweighs the bad. Only absolute transparency in all the components will reproduce this live feeling in the highest degree. Your concept of flavored synergy is not correct--you don't need to soften the Mephisto for recordings like Perhaps Love. Then when you go back to more mundane processed recordings, you will be able to still appreciate that the good still outweighs the bad, even though the good/bad ratio is less than on a great recording.
Once again, your car analogies are leading you astray. As goodsource said, there is something wrong when an amp sounds great only with particular cabling and lousy with ordinary mid level cabling. But the truth is that there is nothing wrong with the Mephisto. Using mid level cabling and preamps, it will still give more complete musical revelation than an inferior amp with the same mid level components. A great amp is not a race car that is clumsy threading a needle. Its purity will let you appreciate loud, dynamic music as well as soft music like Perhaps Love, and even softer sounds like subtle brushes on drums. A high performance car is deafeningly noisy, a bull in a china shop. Don't think of the Mephisto in that way that it needs to be tamed and driven by only a skillful professional driver.
|
Are you saying that for all the endorsement and publicity you give Suncoast, they will not bring the demo Essence or even anything else to you unless you lay out money?
|
speedbump6,
As I asked, could you tell us about the tonal qualities of the Bryston 14B3, and how you thought the Mephisto was better, assuming you compared them at home? Thanks.
|
thezaks, The reviewer's words, "I recently reviewed another class-A power amplifier, the Plinius Reference A-150 ($13,000). I characterized this sweet New Zealand amp as having “feathery highs, strong but round bass, [and] a midband of tonal density to die for.” The Essence had some of those qualities, as well as some quite different ones. Starting with those “feathery highs” -- much like the Plinius A-150, the Gryphon Essence won’t ever have you lunging for the volume control to turn down screechy highs. The Gryphon had poise in the upper frequencies -- its reproduction of detail sounded natural, without calling attention to itself. Much like the Plinius’s, the Gryphon’s midrange was tonally dense, something that’s long been a hallmark of Gryphon amps. But the biggest difference was in the bass. Whereas the Plinius possesses what I described as “round bass,” the Gryphon’s bass was tighter and more physically present. Although Gryphon’s larger, more expensive Antileon Evo and Mephisto amps are even more impressive in just this way, if only slightly, in this area the Essence still has an advantage over most other power amps -- including the Plinius A-150." He is saying that the Essence has some of the qualities of the sweet Plinius--"feathery highs, tonally dense midrange, lack of screechy highs." These are the words used by lovers of euphonic tube and some SS amps. "Feathery" highs means delicate, but lacking in sparkle. "Tonally dense midrange" means rich and creamy due to rolled off HF so that the midrange is emphasized. When I have heard dynamic speakers with amps described like this, the sound is dull boredom. These writers hate sparkle and brilliance, so they call it screechy instead. The next problem with this reviewer is that he doesn't know that amps that have rounded bass, also have rounded midrange and HF. Electrons don't respond differently in different freq ranges. Tube and euphonic SS amps have this rounded character in the entire range. So if he is describing the Essence as having tighter bass than the Plinius, it is likely that the midrange and HF also are more defined than the Plinius. He is either a poor writer (I doubt it) or more likely, doesn't know how to judge sound objectively. WC may have somewhat different tastes than me, but he knows how to describe sound objectively and truthfully, and he is building a reputation as a trusted reviewer with the videos to prove it. One day soon, he will A/B the Essence and Mephisto at home, and we will know the true story. Meanwhile, from this review, we have no way of knowing whether the Essence is like the somewhat euphonic Luxman, or whether it is more like the brilliant and transparent Mephisto. |
WC,
The Essence is probably an excellent amp, so you wouldn't say anything negative about it that would hurt Suncoast or other Gryphon dealer or distributor. You would say truthful things about the sound and how it has a similar family type of Gryphon sound, but doesn't quite equal the Mephisto in areas of X,Y,Z but is fabulous for the money.
Even if anyone here or on your YT channel distorted what you said or pounced on any Gryphon, the dealers or distributor can use the good things you said for their advantage. Fools have the liberty to be heard in the US, and they are mostly ignored. You made a video on the 5 most disappointing amps you've heard, but are you saying you would never do that again, and only do positive written and video reviews the way it is in most magazines that live from their advertising revenue?
|
speedbump6,
Thanks for your useful info. It is tough to differentiate tonal qualities at dealers. At low/medium power, could you hear the different tonal personalities in the midrange and HF between the 14B3 and Mephisto? Resolution?
I think you have the Tekton Ulfberht flagship as the main speakers, and Moab coming for the rears. That should be killer, better than any movie theater.
|
Techno,
No, Nordost and AQ do it well, but I am all for WC trying Gryphon cables. It is natural to want to try many different components when you have an amp you love. We have all done it, including you and me.
WC,
Agree that the speaker comes first, and the Mephisto will get the best out of it. If the speaker is bad, Mephisto will reveal that. However, it is not necessary to have an expensive speaker to appreciate the M or other great amp. From many owner reports, Tekton speakers which are all cheap/modest in price are as good as $100K famous speakers. Too bad audio salesmanship tells people with cheap speakers to get cheap electronics, and people with expensive speakers to get expensive electronics.
The Paradigm Persona B is probably the best speaker of that line for clarity, since it is the only one using all Be drivers. And it is the cheapest, the bottom of the line--another example of deplorable salesmanship. As a fine speaker, for a mere $7K, it deserves the finest amp to bring out the clarity. With its relatively high 92 dB efficiency, and the Tekton Moab's 98 dB efficiency, they would do well with a low power but highest quality amp.
Until you personally do an A/B of the Essence and Mephisto, you cannot say that the M is better in all ways, especially clarity. Certainly, an audition is not needed to predict that the M is better for brute force and power--that's obvious. I'll go back to my experience with Bryston. That company says that all the models sound the same, and a few dealers I have spoken to say the same, because they just blindly follow the sales marketing and merely link the company's website. Possibly a few good dealers who actually listen carefully, know the real sonic differences. However, I am probably only one of very few listeners who know that the 2.5B SST2 is far superior in clarity to the bigger 4B SST2. If I had an efficient speaker, then the little 2.5B would have plenty of power to drive it, and then it would be better than the larger, more expensive 4B in every way.
This might occur with the Essence as well. For an efficient speaker, it might have better resolution AND enough power, making it a better choice than the Mephisto. BTW, we have certainly learned from you that the M has the best drive and transparency, but how about low level resolution? If the M is the best amp you have found, it should excel at both low and high power.
I am not implying that you must do the A/B of Essence and M. You're not getting paid much to work for us, and your personal happiness for your own system is more important. So if you are happy with the M, that's great.
|
The newest 2 videos have wonderful sound. I can't yet tell if the Gryphon cables are better than Nordost cables--I would have to go back and forth among all the videos with the same song.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Gryphon Essence is more revealing and live than the 4 MBL monsters. According to reviews, MBL is good but a little rounded in sound. It is one of the worst examples of an overpriced product line. You can A/B the Essence with MBL there, to learn the truth.
|
WC,
I strongly disagree with the concept of company synergy. You happen to prefer the Gryphon Mephisto with Gryphon VIP cables because of the softening/mellowing effect compared to the Nordost Odin/Valhalla. Someone else or I might prefer Nordost because it would maximize sparkle and other things. I suspect on the Mephisto, you would also prefer other softening cables like Cardas, Ansuz, Wireworld, compared to Nordost. Perhaps the Ansuz would produce a fabulous result for you, maximizing the sparkle/focus while giving just enough softening to take away your unease with the Nordost.
In the end, a company team has their own concept and preference for how they want their products to sound together. Carried further, Gryphon might think that it is best to use their entire product line, including the speaker. However, you might not like their speakers. If you were listening with their team in their rooms, you might prefer other ancillary components with their G speakers, and the results might be different with even each G model. They would likely be different with your Wilson. Soon you will try all this on your Maggie 20.7, and the results are likely to be different as well.
If you presently think that your present combo is the ultimate, then you might as well shut down the entire thread, because nothing else can be quite as good. You will have locked yourself into this 1 combo of ultimate synergy. Of course, this is absurd, and you likely will find other speakers better for you than the Wilson Alexia 2, and then you will have to dump all your present synergistic components, and discover the magic with only one set of new synergistic components to go with the new speaker. Again, absurd. Even with your present setup, the ideal setup would be different depending on the quality of the recording. For the most natural recording like Perhaps Love, you might prefer Nordost + Mephisto, but for most lousy processed recordings where the Nordost shows the defects, the Gryphon VIP would be the best. Another factor is your moods from day to day. One day you may be stressed out and then prefer the softening effect of the VIP. Another day you are happily excited and revved up and may prefer Nordost.
I have it much easier, because all my components are chosen for transparency/clarity/brilliance as the overriding factor. If I get a new speaker, I won't need to throw out my present components and get completely different ones in order to get some magic synergy with the new speaker. Whatever characteristics of the new speaker, I will still seek to maximize those factors I value, so my present ancillary components will still retain the good results I have.
Don't say that my cheaper components are not as revealing as your more expensive ones, so my reasoning is not valid. I assure you that this is not the case. My Mytek has far more sparkle, etc. than the Merrill I tried. The Merrill has other qualities than other people would prefer. It has more expensive parts than my Mytek, but the different design concepts make it sound different, not the expensive parts.
With the critical performance of cars, it is likely that more expensive, finely tuned parts improve the performance. The same is not necessarily true about audio electronics and cables. Even with cheap cars, you can't put a round peg into a square hole. The design specifies that only certain parts will do. In other areas like drinks at clubs, it is a total farce that the same drink in a modest restaurant costs $5, but $30 in the fancy place. The talented bartender when he was working at the modest restaurant got a better offer at the fancy restaurant, so his same magic recipe now fetches $30. Of course, the real reason it is more expensive, is the artificial social image of the fancy place, with more money needed to create the fancy atmosphere, the larger space with more overhead, etc.
More basic than all of this is the overall issue of money--assume there is a hypothetical rich guy who is prepared to spend a million bucks on his total system. He might still appreciate and prefer the sonic qualities of a small cheap speaker like the Paradigm Persona B or a large cheap speaker like the Tekton Moab. But after careful listening and study of the market, he may decide that the DCS Vivaldi offers the best performance, and he spends big bucks on that. He may prefer the particular sound of the entire Odin 2 loom, and say it is worth spending for that. On the other hand, he may decide that he doesn't like the sound character of the $250,000 Relentless, and prefers the sound character of the $2500 Mytek. Money may or may not buy audio happiness. |
speedbump6,
Yes, better parts do make a difference. But an amp with more innovative design supported by good listening will sound better with cheaper parts than an amp of run of the mill design and minimal listening plus expensive parts.
|
I'll also give an anecdote about a hypothetical music gentlemen who is a lot richer than me but has similarities to me. He is a wealthy interventional cardiologist who makes $2 million a year and has also developed important technologies in his field. Originally he went to a top music conservatory like Juilliard or Curtis and studied violin. He realized he wasn't as talented as his superstar classmates and became a doctor instead. He still plays string quartets every week with his former classmates who have decent musical careers. He plays a Guarneri del Gesu violin worth $5 million, which is not of the caliber of a few world famous Guarneri's such as the 1742 David Guarneri played most recently by Jascha Heifetz, the greatest violinist of the 20th Century, now owned by a Japanese corporation and worth about $50-100 million. His professional friends in his quartet can only afford $50,000 for each of their instruments. They think he is still an excellent violinist, but they all know that the 2nd violinist with the relatively cheap $50,000 violin sounds better than he does with his $5 million violin, mainly because the 2nd violinist has more skill. He also rehearses weekly in a semi-pro orchestra and sits up front close to all the action.
The cardiologist has other rewarding musical activities, like having subscriptions to orchestral concerts at famous concert halls in the perfect seat which is front row center. He goes to string quartet, vocal and piano concerts also. One concert a week at an average of $100 a ticket adds up to $5,000 a year. He realizes that no audio system comes close to the experience he has by being in the best seat twice weekly, and by hearing the pure sound close up, unadulterated by studio processing. He still wants to hear his fabulous recordings of the greatest musicians as best as he can, so he decides that he is willing to spend about $200,000 on the total system, but no more. He has everything in its proper perspective.
Well, that's my anecdote and metaphor. Draw your own conclusions. |
You are mistaken. My cheap Mytek and Bryston tell differences at least as well as the Merrill 114 and the expensive Viola Concerto amp I tested. Possibly better, since the Merrill and Viola always sounded sweet, no matter what they were fed. But the transparent Mephisto, like my amps, tells you more than euphonic, sweet amps. Money is irrelevant. Please stop promoting the high end salesmanship myth that more expensive reveals more things, is better, etc. Just describe what you hear. Thanks for just that.
No matter what you have, cheap or expensive, careful setup will always bring more benefits. That's the main value of a high end dealer, compared to online remote sellers. Sellers of cheap things often don't offer the helpful service of some high end dealers, because the mass market high volume nature of the business precludes quality guidance. But cheap things deserve the same care as expensive things.
|
dguitarnut,
Seriously, there are many violinists who obsess over many things. The materials used to make strings all have different sound. We have all experimented with different brands of strings. The position of the bridge, and the soundpost inside, in relation to the bridge feet. The height of the bridge, which affects the tension on the strings and the comfort of the player when pressing the left fingers on the fingerboard. Also, the springiness of the bow on the strings. How tight the bow hair is, affects the ability to make a smooth sound or play fast pyrotechnics. Some violinists have subjected their instruments to major surgery like taking off the neck and re-angling it, or thinning out the top plate undersides to alter the tonality. Even with optimal adjustment of all these factors, it is interesting that the resonance of the bow interacts with the resonance of the violin, so that there are slightly different tonalities with each bow/violin combination.
As a guitar enthusiast, you probably know about all these things. But despite everything I just mentioned, the difference between one violin/bow combination well set up, and another violin/bow combination well set up, is far greater than any single combo with all the variable setups. This is analogous to how the speaker in an audio system is the dominant factor which makes the sound.
My perceptions of the sound of an instrument vary tremendously depending on how far my ears are from the instrument. I hear the sound of someone 3 feet away playing his instrument, but when I ask to try his violin, I am amazed at how much more I hear under my ear and its radically different character than I heard from just a few feet away.
Relating to how the monetary value of an instrument has little relationship to its quality and sound, when heard from a reasonable distance, I'll tell of an experience I had. I went to the shop of a famous modern violin maker named Sam Z, to try out some of his recently made violins. The price for his new violin was $30K, when the typical price for a typical Chinese or Polish maker was $3-5K, and $10K for most American makers. I did think that Sam's violin had better tone than typical new violins, but it was still no match for many of the great 18th Century violins I have played. But I have also played many mediocre sounding $100K old instruments which were inferior to Sam's. Some time later, I went to a concert of a string quartet, sat close in the 1st row, and listened to the sound of the 2 violinists in the group. I thought they were both of excellent comparable quality. After the performance, I asked them each what violin they played. One played a great old violin, and the other played a new Sam Z violin. Boy was I surprised and fooled! From even a close distance of 10 feet, the Sam Z violin sounded much different than when I played a similar Sam violin. And this $30K violin had similar quality of sound when heard from 10 feet to the $300K violin.
There are a few morals of this story for the audiophile. One, don't judge a live concert sound from a distance of 50-100 feet, proclaim it is the ideal, then go home and adjust your system to make it sound like that. The recording was made with close mike distances, so the live reference sound is the same close distance, roughly the 1st row at a distance of 10 feet or so. Second, understand that money has little relation to the quality of sound. There are cheap speakers and electronics that sound better than many expensive units, and there are also expensive items that sound better than many cheap items. As mrdecibel just said, even cheap amps are readily capable of revealing differences in cables, etc.
|
My previous deleted post, I'll redo here.
WC,
I don't mean any disrespect, but the fact is that your bias shows in that you continue to promote your own interests in mainly expensive equipment and your cultivation of high end contacts for that purpose. Yes, I have a bias, but I have heard lots of equipment at many price levels, and know what I am talking about. No, I have not heard everything, and neither have you. There is nothing wrong with your mission, and you are entitled to it, and it is your thread. But you will never open yourself to hearing zip cord, or Mytek or anything else that may upset the agenda of the expensively oriented high end audio industry. Many of your followers don't have huge money to spend, or they know the truth of what I am saying and wouldn't spend the money even if they have plenty of it. If you want to cultivate more YT subscribers, you could include your experiences with a lot more equipment such as what I mention. What you consider cheap at $10-20K is still expensive to most music lovers who want to get great sound and still have money for other musical activities, such as going to concerts, taking music lessons. Suppose your lovely daughter wants to take piano lessons or ballet lessons. These costs add up, so some perspective is needed, as I mentioned in my post about the cardiologist above.
On to more substantive matters, like music. Mephisto, short for Mephistopheles, was a mythological devil. Franz Liszt, the composer of the Mephisto waltz, was the most famous musician of the 19th Century, with his own devilish personality and devilishly difficult pieces. The YT recording I tried to link was by Tiffany Poon, a 15 year old pianist, who now has 255K YT subscribers and lots of Patreon supporters. This astounding classical piece has big dynamic range and complexity, and shows why I prioritize clarity/detail in audio systems to reveal the music as best as possible. I hope you enjoy it. |
speedbump6,
I think you said that you preferred the Vandy 3A to both the 5A, and the Linn speaker. So you liked the sound of the 3A, while realizing that it is cheaper than the the 5A. And you didn't like the top Linn, which was probably the most expensive of them all. You have confirmed my point that bigger and more expensive isn't necessarily better. |
guyl,
I agree with your balanced view of things. I like your goal of getting 90% of the benefits for 60% of the price. In other aspects of life, there is the 80/20 rule. In the stock market, a great investor gets 80% of the returns with only 20% of the risk. I like to fantasize that as a good amateur violinist, I sound 80% as good as a professional with only 20% of the practice time. If I actually put in 20% of the time, that might be true, but actually I put in only 5% of the time due to my real profession as a doctor, and get significantly less than 80% of the results.
|
psnyder149 said, "1st row, 2nd balcony, Orchestra Hall Chicago or Heinz Hall Pittsburgh. Best sound in the house!"
"Best" means his preferences for laid back sound missing a lot of the musical information picked up by the much closer microphones. You can "like" anything you want, but my statements are objective facts to consider in your preferences.
See my post in the early part of p 372, 12/19 at 10:15 PM. Mercury made great recordings in Orchestra Hall with the main mikes 10-12 feet above the conductor's head and left and right omni's close to the stage. They knew what they were doing by combining great close detail with the spaciousness from that mike placement. Tom Fine said in the Dec 2021 S-phile issue beginning p 133 that these recordings made by his father captured better sound (aka best of everything) than any location in the hall. Tom likes rock/pop more, but anyone who likes classical music should listen to these great recordings.
Pauls' listening is mainly to rock/pop. With those processed recordings, and terrible live sound from PA amplification, I understand his preferences. If I were at those live concerts, I would want to seek refuge from the electronic assault in the balcony also.
|
WC,
I enjoyed your thoughtful discussion of the 8 preamps. If the remote on the Christine weren't such a negative, for sound quality it would probably improve to 4 on your rankings, maybe 3, beating the Ayre. For best value, it seems that the Christine should rank 1, the top. Watch for the upcoming Merrill preamp based on GaN.
About the Ayre, there is some confusion about the HF. You find HF outstanding, but then rate the HF about like the ARC ref 10. According to you, the ref 10 inflates images and obscures nuances, which the Ayre does not. But if the overall character of the Ayre is tubey like the ref 10, then I would rank the Christine higher than the Ayre, if the goal is neutrality/transparency.
Similarly, if the goal is neutrality/transparency without harshness, the Boulder would rate top, no. 1. The Dag HD is a skillful example of flavored coloring. You prefer it, but the fact is that any coloring reduces transparency and revealing of musical detail. You cannot have both coloring and maximal revelation of natural musical detail at the same time, although the HD is the most skillful compromise.
I eagerly await your review of the Pandora preamp. Ultimately, the real fun will be any of the new Boulder packages vs Gryphon package.
|
goodsource,
Agree on everything. Also, at a dealer years ago, I heard a Maggie 3 model in a nice room with top of the line Ayre preamp and amp. The system sounded tubey, without the usual sparkle of Maggies.
|
kps25sc,
Perhaps you don't know of my 60 years of musical background and 45 years of audio experience. I have heard many things, but not everything. Same is true of everyone. But I have enough technical background to know that if someone says a minimonitor has tons of bass, it is not necessary to listen for yourself to know this is nonsense, unless you want to listen in a small dog house. Conversely, if a seemingly unbiased listener writes about technically plausible advantages confirmed by listening to a variety of music, his word can be respected. Of course, the ultimate arbiter is your own listening, but many things can be considered or rejected based on intelligent understanding. The field for auditioning has to be narrowed to the most likely candidates.
BTW, I know tweak1 who is a good listener with a long life of intelligent listening and professional audio experience. He was the one who opened my mind to the benefits of OB speakers. Do you have an open mind, or would you rather seek satisfaction from criticizing people who know what they are talking about? |
kps25sc,
You wrote,
"You use 40 year old electrostatic speakers where only the high-frequency panels are active, if this is by choice or because of malfunction, you haven’t shared. Driven by a mid-fi low cost amp, connected with zip -cords, with a Rane pro audio equalizer as preamp."
So you initially accused me of taking a writer's word as gospel about how great OB speakers are, without hearing them myself. Ignoring your mocking tone, that is still a reasonable criticism. But then in the above quote, you make totally outrageous claims that my reference components are mediocre, based only upon industry myths that cheap things can't be great. Worse, you make those statements without hearing them yourself.
First, you don't know anything about my Audiostatic 240 speakers--you have never seen or heard them. I have been listening to today's top electrostatics, and I haven't found any of them to equal the transparency of mine. Second, my low cost Mytek Brooklyn amp beats the much more expensive Merrill Veritas and 114 amps for clarity and neutrality. I have heard the comparisons at home--you have not. Third, zip cord beats many of the audiophile speaker cables for clarity and focus. Have you tried zip, or maybe your mind is closed that you wouldn't even consider trying it? Fourth, you have not tried the Rane ME60 to understand what makes it essential. Used without its EQ function, just as a line stage it beat my Spectral DMC10 preamp which was one of the best units in its day. Mrdecibel agreed that its transparency beats many preamps up to about $5000, although we would both admit that SOTA preamps today would probably have greater transparency. But most valuable is the EQ function. Boosting HF judiciously by ear enables much more palpability of all instruments and helps flawed speakers. Without EQ, a system doesn't approach live sound, but with EQ, a great speaker and source will offer live levels of realism. The effect is not to make HF tizzy, but to bring out overtones of even mid bass and midrange instruments. String instruments like cellos have the natural buzz of the string revealed, whereas without EQ they are just mud.
With an open mind, I can admit that today's digital EQ may be better than my analog Rane EQ, but the Rane is good enough so that I make adjustments by ear anyway. When you develop an open mind, I will then respect what you have to say.
|
WC,
From your videos, I had the feeling that both Nordost Odin 1 and AQ Dragon excelled for clarity. In what specific ways do you find that the Dragon is better than Odin?
Your advice to avoid confrontation is right, but the thrust of my recent posts has been factual information about what I hear, and theoretical reasons why low mass drivers and open baffle (OB) designs have big advantages. Rather than saying "anybody who prefers conventional dynamic speakers is dumb" I say, "if your priority is powerful bass and overall dynamics, go for those speakers, but if your priority is clarity and natural tone free of boxy coloration, go for designs with low mass drivers and OB." If you study my carefully worded posts, I don't insult people who have different priorities than mine. Rather, the insults have been initiated by people who attack me for my priorities. It is a shame that many people don't want to address the theoretical advantages of something I mention, so most threads just degenerate into "I like X better than Y, you like Y better than X, get lost and don't try to convince me otherwise."
BTW, most people here don't admit that you and I agree that clarity and naturalness are very important. Our differences are not that much, only that I am willing to sacrifice bass extension/dynamics more than you, for example. So I believe that my posts have direct relevance to your goals.
|
Well said comments by mrdecibel. To show how we old guys are, when mrD said the Rane was as clean as $6K preamps, that was when $6K was a lot of money for a preamp or amp. The top Spectral DMA 100 amp was $5K at the time.
I was happy when I bought my original Rane ME60 in 1995 for $600, finding it did extraordinary things for my system, both used flat as a line stage, and especially when EQ was engaged. I was flabbergasted at how mrD's tweaks made his ME60 far superior to mine. I bought it unheard, just trusting that he knew what he was doing. I had never bought any audio item without an audition first. He speculated how it could be improved more by getting a better volume control (VC). Even with its crude VC, it has wonderful sound. Just imagine the additional improvements that would come from better electronic parts inside.
I am very impressed with how the Christine preamp is transparent and doesn't change the sound of the system by much, compared to bypassing it using the DCS VC. It is possibly more transparent than my new Rane from mrD as a line stage. I wish top companies would develop an EQ with top parts. When I eliminated my Rane and used my Benchmark DAC1 direct into the amp, it was a little more transparent than with the non-EQ Rane back in, but the huge benefits of the EQ were lost. So eliminating EQ and using a top line stage takes the system up 1 notch, but using EQ judiciously to correct much bigger deficiencies in the speakers takes the system up 50 notches. Believe me, I don't exaggerate.
|
kren0006,
You are well meaning, but unfortunately you miss my points. Do you really believe I think the LRS may be superior BECAUSE of its cheap price? Maybe you are joking, although I can't be sure. Do you not understand the benefits of low mass boxless design? Of course, I can say unequivocally that the Chronosonic has more quantity of bass which is important for some music, but not all. Elsewhere in the freq range, the Chrono has much better dynamics. That goes without saying, since listening is not required to understand that its design enables those benefits. But at 85 dB on the music in WC's videos, I wouldn't know without listening, whether the Chrono has overall benefits to the LRS.
Clarity is nearly everything, because it enables naturalness of tone, spatiality. Even with rock music with deep bass, the song also has softer passages with delicacy. Would you sacrifice clarity in the softer passages and listen mainly to the deep bass, or would you do what I do when I listen to other music, enjoying the supreme clarity/naturalness of tone in most of the music and just say, OK the low bass is not there? I understand your priorities for the music you listen to, but ask yourself whether you are downplaying the importance of clarity?
|
kren0006,
Thanks for your listening evaluations of the LRS, Rega, Spendor and Linn speakers. But you said that compared to the other speakers, the LRS was garbage. What do you mean by garbage? I never said that the Alexia 2 or any other speaker WC has presented is garbage, just that these boxes have a canned quality compared to the more open, natural quality of the 20.7. When I heard Wilsons at a well known dealer, I did think they were all garbage, but WC has built wonderful systems so that what he presents as a total system is certainly nothing like garbage. I am on record as praising him for nice sound on his videos.
I freely admit the more powerful bass and overall dynamics of box speakers, but I don't know if you hear the natural quality of planar boxless speakers. I don't know how much exposure you have had to live unamplified music to appreciate what I am saying. Most of your listening is to artificial processed music, so if that is your reference, I can understand why you prefer the sound of all those box speakers you mentioned, which give you that type of sound which is artificial box resonances superimposed on top of the intrinsic sound of the drivers themselves. So I believe that the best hope for the lover of dynamics with a decent degree of clarity is those open baffle (OB) dynamic driver designs. No, I haven't heard any of them, but I respect the word of tweak1 who has them and has owned the Maggie 3.6R and Acoustat models which are OB planar and electrostatic OB designs, respectively.
In addition, I know you have limitations on the amount of money you are able or willing to spend on a system upgrade. It is certainly possible that a Wilson or Magico speaker costing over $100K would please me, but I am lucky that my preferred designs are much cheaper. Electrostatic technology is 100 years old, and most of them are affordable. Planar ribbons are affordable, like the 20.7. I am waiting to hear the unique latest GTA planar ribbon. Combined with their custom 2-6 subs, they promise to be a system that does everything the best, for $30-50K or so. I will report on this. OB dynamic driver designs are also modestly priced, and I can see you going for them and having everything you want. The only "deficiency" of OB speakers is that the bass is not the stomach hitting assault that rock lovers like. Actually, I regard this as not a deficiency but an advantage since realistic natural bass is tight without that pressurized assault.
|
carey1110,
Wonderful post. Nice info about noise exposure in jobs. I totally agree that instead of saying something is "better" it would be more useful to describe the specific ways it is "better"--HF, focus, soundstage (forward or laid back), midrange tonality, bass tightness or fullness, etc.
Regarding hearing, everyone loses HF sensitivity through the normal aging process. Read the wonderful 25 year retrospective by Mike Fremer in the latest Stereophile. At 73, he says he doesn't have the hearing he had 25 or even 10 years ago, but he says he is a better listener. I have observed how elderly violin professors perceive so much more than the young student violinists. Obviously, the young violinists hear better, but the elderly professor points things out that the young violinists missed. So listening is a lot about judgment and experience.
|
One of the few redeeming features of the covid situation is the opportunity to enjoy outdoor dining and outdoor live, unamplified music. Yesterday I drove through lower Manhattan in the lively Prince St area. I stopped at a red light and heard some jazz. Even through my closed windows, after only a few seconds, I could tell it was live. I opened the window and saw the tenor sax player about 20 feet from me. The sound was immediate and clear and had more life at 50 dB than from any audio system cranked up. I didn't analyze the HF, midrange, bass, soundstage or any other audiophile BS.
The closest analogy I can make for anyone who has little knowledge of live, unamplified sound is furniture. When I was a child, my family had a nice white painted piece. But my parents knew it was a fine antique, and they had it restored, stripping away gobs of paint and who knows what other junk that was covered by that white paint. After that, I couldn't believe the beautiful wood that was revealed.
Nobody would deny that the pure wood that was revealed is more beautiful than the paint job. In the same way, live unamplified music is more beautiful than audio systems' imitation of it. Box speaker designs with their artificial resonances added from the box have thicker layers of paint superimposed on the sound of the intrinsic drivers, and boxless designs have the least amount of paint or resonances added. That's why OB boxless designs are the best approach if the goal is the closest simulation of live, unamplified music. We'll see how the boxless ML 13A and 20.7 compare.
|
kps25sc,
Music is such a competitive profession that many young musicians who are talented and excellent performers can only make a living doing street performances. For audio purposes, even mediocre performers can give an education about what live sound is. You can get close or further away from them to learn the effects of distance, and throw a dollar into their case for a few minutes of listening. But to hear great performers in a concert hall in an ideal seat which is hard to get, you have to pay sometimes several hundred bucks. You go to a great concert mainly to hear the music and not judge the sound, because most of the time your seat will be inferior.
For really great performances, I go to youtube to hear the recordings regardless of sound quality. For top performances, I have a few modern recordings in good sound, so it is worthwhile to spend some money on the audio system. |
True, but the point of my experience was to tell about how a single instrument like the sax is difficult to reproduce properly. I merely heard the sax out of my car window, and the sax bell was pointed away from me. Still, most audio systems are an embarrassment by comparison. I just think that a low mass open baffle design comes closest to reproducing the tone of a natural instrument. Get this right for a single instrument with as little coloration as possible, and the rest follows for groups of 2 instruments, then 3 and so on for the full scale orchestra. Audiophile things like soundstage are secondary to getting the tone right, without the overlay of artificial box speaker resonances. When I heard the sax from a compromised position like inside the car, I didn’t crave the nonexistent soundstage, but was delighted by the pure tone.
Agree about classical. If live classical is used as a reference, and the audio system is the highest quality, the tone is right, and even processed rock will present the correct tone as the recording engineers present it. So even WC’s videos of processed music show that the 20.7 gets the tone more natural and correct than the Alexia 2. Even processed recordings have sections with reasonably natural voices and instruments, although I hate the artificial electronic bass without natural harmonics on those recordings. And even the mediocre quality sound of my computer and youtube still shows these differences between the 20.7 and Alexia 2.
|
kps25sc,
I would be happy to recommend some classical pieces you would enjoy. Years ago, I attended a classical concert give by the violinist, Nigel Kennedy. He was dressed like a rock star, and wanted to show the connection between jazz and classical. He played a fast virtuoso jazz piece, followed by a fast classical Bach piece. He succeeded in showing that both pieces had similar style and spirit. Classical music had developed almost all melodic and harmonic forms by 1900, so later popular genres utilized classical advances for their own purposes. |
carey1110,
I own the Audiostatic 240 electrostatic speaker, which is an OB electrostatic. My general point and new thinking is that the open quality of OB designs is a combination of the driver and the OB factor which minimizes the colorations imposed by boxy resonances. It is possible that a box speaker with far superior drivers will have less coloration than an OB design with mediocre drivers. It's a chain, with all the factors contributing.
Go back to the videos and listen carefully to "Q&A, Fink" on the 20.7 vs Alexia 2. For the opening voice, then the faux hand claps and then the faux tambourine that is like the lid of a metal trash can, the 20.7 has more clarity, snap and natural tone than the Alexia. The Alexia is like canned corn, but the 20.7 is like fresh corn. There are some people who may prefer canned corn to fresh corn, but that's another matter. The major advantage of the Alexia is superior deep bass. The 20.7 has the SOTA tweeter, which WC also has noted. Although he didn't play any orchestral string music, the superiority of the 20.7 tweeter can be heard with any music.
BTW, most classical audience members are sitting far enough away, that the HF and snap are diminished, so their attention is drawn to the huge dynamics of a large orchestra. But if you want to seriously compare live classical music to recordings whose main microphones are about in the 1st row, or closer above the stage, the reference point for the listener is in the 1st row, not any further back. In recordings, there are often mikes mixed in which capture the ambience of the hall, but the main mikes are up close. There are often very close spot mikes for individual instruments.
When I go to concerts, I often cannot get my preferred seat, 1st row center. I might only get the 12th row for a famous performer, so I listen to the first piece there. I am horrified by how muddy the sound is, although I enjoy the music. I quickly move up to the 3rd row for the next piece if there are empty seats, and the sound is much better, but still not so great. Very often, for the next piece, I get my 1st row seat, and the sound is delightful, with everything I want--clarity, snap, natural tone, and of course, plenty of dynamics. |
