Boxiness is often subtle, as in an overlay of coloration, which I tried to describe in my furniture analogy between the pure wood and the layers of paint added to the wood. The best, most expensive boxes have the least coloration among boxes, so that is a big factor in the much higher cost of SOTA box designs.
I am not a cheerleader for the 20.7 as the best example of low mass OB design, because its large size is associated with image bloating. I am looking forward to the ML 13A which is moderate size and probably has more focused imaging than the 20.7. The moderate size Alexia 2 probably also has more focused imaging than the 20.7. I am just discussing purity and naturalness of tone, which seems to be superior on the 20.7 on the videos heard on my computer system. I defer to WC to see if he comes to the same conclusions if he listens in his room or on computer audio.
|
WC,
I agree with your overall assessment of the 20.7 vs Alexia 2. |
OK, I listened again to the 20.7 and Alexia 2 on the song "Q&A, Fink." There is not much HF in that recording, and my mediocre computer speakers wouldn't reveal much HF anyway. I found the hand claps slightly more brilliant on the 20.7, not a blowaway. WC didn't answer the question about which tweeter is more extended or revealing, so I'll be generous and call it a draw.
More significant is the opening voice. I found the 20.7 offers a more palpable, coherent vocal tone than the Wilson. If the tweeters of both speakers are comparable, the midrange of the 20.7 is faster than the midrange of the Wilson, so that the midrange keeps up with the tweeter better in the 20.7. This is explained by the low mass midrange planar driver being almost as fast, but of similar character to the ribbon tweeter. Dynamic tweeters can be wonderful, as in the Wilson, but the downfall of dynamic midrange and lower freq drivers is their different character of slowness and more coloration. The boxy design is a disadvantage that slightly handicaps the Wilson, although I accept the fact that it is one of the top box designs with the lowest amount of coloration from the box. That's what money buys. I also have little doubt that the top M series of Magico also has lower coloration than the A and S series. All the Magicos have excellent freq response, but the M series was designed to have less boxy coloration due to more sophisticated technology.
On other selections, the Wilson has a somewhat more hifi-ish coloration. Upper midrange instruments are a little pinched, due to the slight incoherency between midrange and tweeter drivers. I can see how the Wilson may be perceived as having more detail than the 20.7, due to the pinching effect, but I hear the 20.7 as being both detailed and smooth, and more like natural live music. Analogies are usually flawed, but I'll say again that the 20.7 is like fresh corn, and the Wilson like canned corn, but great canned corn where the processing plant slipped in a little spicy pizazz that many people like, EVEN ME at times, and for certain music.
The ML 13A will probably have the most coherent sound, since the same stat driver covers the whole range from 300 Hz on up. Long time readers know my feelings about curved panels, so I won't prematurely rate the ML 13A vs the 20.7 until everyone can listen for themselves very soon.
|
I listened again to "Baby I love the feeling" on both 20.7 and Alexia 2. The opening jangle of HF percussion is crisper on the 20.7, and also more open and smoother without the slight pinching or "wrinkles" of the Alexia 2. Next, the voice has the same fresher, more natural quality on the 20.7. Even though the instruments behind the voice sound processed due to the recording engineering, the 20.7 presents everything as fresher, or less canned than the Alexia 2. WC described the 20.7 as a little more organic than the Alexia 2. I think "organic" is similar to my word "coherent," so we agree on the character of the sound, just using different words.
I will admit that for a box speaker, the Alexia 2 is better than I originally thought. I can understand how the slightly hifi-ish canned quality of the Alexia 2 is somewhat irritating with the Nordost + Mephisto, so the Gryphon cabling is preferred by WC. But I believe that the smoother, more natural 20.7 would perform at a higher level with the more transparent Nordost cabling. There are no irritating aspects in the midrange/HF of the 20.7, so the Nordost would bring the positives without the negatives.
My computer audio doesn't reveal imaging or soundstage, but only the tone quality, so it is possible that the 20.7 flaw of bloated imaging heard in a room would put the 20.7 at a disadvantage compared to the Alexia 2, for this aspect of the total sound.
|
carey1110,
Using your definition of "organic" as the absence of electronic haze, revealing the pure metal, wood or flesh tones, that is exactly the original point I made about live unamplified music, and I hear the 20.7 as coming closer to that ideal than the Alexia 2. Listen to the 2 songs I mentioned and see what you think. I agree with your definition of "coherent" as having a consistent sound from bass to HF. But suppose a speaker is warm and veiled--it can have coherence, but that means that all ranges are equally mediocre in resolution. So I like your definition of "organic," and this purity is the most important characteristic of live unamped music and the speaker that comes closest to that.
It is true that ancillary components will change the sound of a great speaker, but you'll see that this won't change the obvious differences between the 20.7 and Alexia 2. Their basic difference is much greater than the difference between amps and cables. But both videos I heard used the Mephisto--the latest one, and the latest one with the Alexia 2.
I'll take your word that the Harbeth has a boxy sound--no amp or cable will change that. Some may say that a speaker with wide dispersion drivers will have much less boxy sound. I suppose that is true to an extent. But the box will still create all sorts of resonances that create that hazy overlay which submerges the pure tone we love of instruments and voices.
|
carey1110,
Agreed, but I find the comparative videos of WC more informative even with mediocre computer audio, than at dealers. But just tell me what you hear with the present videos as they are, regarding the specific things I mentioned for "Q&A-Fink" and "Baby I love your way." It is not a value judgment about what you or I prefer, but about describing sounds objectively.
|
carey1110,
Agree that it is confusing to really compare 2 speakers unless every other component is the same--electronics, all cables. I really want to see what you hear, specifically, on "Baby I love your way" between the 2 videos as is. In the opening HF percussion, for the 1st time today I heard the subtle glassy overtones and their decay. I had heard this song over 10 times, but it was the 20.7 that first revealed this glassy character. Going back to the Alexia 2, the glassiness was there, but less obvious. The opening keyboards sound more natural and open than on the Alexia 2, which sounds a little pinched/congested by comparison.
Summarizing my observations, I honestly conclude that the speakers don't have radically different sounds. They are both high quality, with some differences. One set of cables may or may not get me to prefer one speaker over the other with a different set of cables. But reasonable tweaks of my Rane EQ which still preserve the essential musicality of each speaker would definitely change my mind about which speaker I prefer. This is because the EQ has 50 times the effects compared to cables, and has more effects compared to different amps. No, I haven't heard either the 20.7 or Alexia 2 in rooms, but I have plenty of experience with many systems to know the overriding importance of the EQ. Using EQ, I could still tell the slightly artificial sound of the Alexia 2 in comparison to the 20.7, but I could tweak the EQ subtly differently for each speaker, and in a singly blinded (not double blinded) test, someone could play both systems and get me to say that I prefer the Alexia 2 to the 20.7 overall. For example, I could bring out the HF percussion and those glassy overtones better on the Alexia 2 with one adjustment on the EQ, than on the 20.7 with another EQ adjustment. Whatever slight reduction of transparency there is from the Rane electronics compared to a SOTA line stage, this is hugely compensated for by the opportunity to tweak the sound using the EQ function. |
Jay, perhaps your career is in movie production. If not, you're still a great promoter.
|
I am shocked at how mediocre the present ML 13A is, compared to the 20.7 and Alexia 2. On Q&A-Fink, the opening voice is muddy and too bass heavy. Maybe this is due to lack of room correction for the woofers, I don't know. The fundamental freq of the male voice in this piece varies from about 140-300 Hz, so that's woofer territory on the ML 13A. Higher in freq, the midrange and HF are better, but are still colored and congested by comparison to the 20.7 and Alexia 2. The bass badness spreads into higher freq.
The 13A's HF which should be immune from the shenanigans of the bass and room correction, are still rolled off compared to the other speakers. This gets me back to my long standing criticism of curved stat panels. HF are rolled off from the sides of the curved panels, because of the radiation patterns from large diaphragms, which is also true of cardioid microphones. The straight ribbon tweeter of the 20.7 doesn't exhibit HF rolloff off axis, and the flat midrange/bass panels of the 20.7 are also a correct design. The excellent tweeter of the Alexia also shows superior HF response and dispersion to the curved 13A HF.
Let's see what happens to the 13A when you fiddle with the room correction. Move the whole speaker further away from all walls to decrease the congestion and mud. Toe in so the midpoint of the panel faces you, which will lessen some HF rolloff. Still, I doubt the bass will approach the quality of the bass in the Alexia 2. The Alexia 2's bass is excellent in both quality and quantity, and is balanced with the rest of that speaker.
|
WC,
Curved stat panels are problematic so no matter how much or little you toe them in, you get loss of information from midrange up, and especially in HF. Flat panels like Maggies are better designed. It is a shame that the potentially greater clarity due to tighter control of the diaphragm by the electrostatic sandwich compared to planar designs is handicapped by a curved design.
I don't care what designers of curved panels like ML say about optimum setup. Their priority is to have several listeners at once experience the sound. My answer to that is that everyone hears similar compromised sound, whereas a single listener to the Maggie or other flat panel speaker will get the best possible sound. A listener should have the abiiity to get the best sound, then move on and let another get into the sweet spot and enjoy it. Even with Wilsons or most dynamic speakers, there is a sweet spot for the best sound, although it is larger than with planar speakers so that several people can enjoy close to the best possible sound with the dynamic speaker.
Many people don't like hybrid stat/dynamic driver designs which are trying to marry totally different driver technologies. Maybe I am being too harsh on the relatively cheap 13A, because its woofer and cabinet probably will never approach the performance of the better design of the bass in Wilsons. But I'll keep an open mind to see how the room correction works out. It is remarkable that the 20.7 is far superior to the 13A at their price point, and competes effectively with the Alexia 2, bettering it in some ways but not in other ways.
Don't compare me to the average commenter on youtube. You know of my expertise by now. Please respect that, as well as my detailed analysis of your setups, which are intended not as negativity but to be as helpful and objective as my knowledge and experience allow. At the same time, I respect your experience, appreciate and enjoy all your videos, and I try to expand your knowledge base which will pay off in your consulting business.
Lastly, after unbiased comparisons made possible by your videos, I have finally come to respect the performance of the Wilsons, and I praised you for that. |
psnyder149,
Mercury’s mike placement was the absolute best. Tom Fine states that his father recognized the HF rolloff with distance, so he used Schoeps mikes with the "presence peak." (That was Mercury’s form of EQ which was effective. I merely encourage any home listener to experiment with EQ with any recording, in effect being his own recording engineer to his tastes). This enabled him to get more detailed sound than anywhere in the hall. The closest I came to that ideal position was when I was playing solo near the front center on stage with my ears almost 6 feet in height. For my small orchestras and other ensembles, my central mikes about 6 feet high were ideal, and my recordings beat most commercial recordings for immediacy and detail. For large orchestral pieces in those Mercury recordings, 10-12 foot height was necessary to get the proper balance.
The next best listener position for capturing immediacy and detail is the 1st row center. The balcony is best for overall balance, but unfortunately the compromise is in overall loss of musical information in all freq, due to unequal absorption of various freq with distance, and messy greater wall reflections with distance. Still, at any given hall position, the human ear is smarter than the microphone. The human ear adapts to the compromises, aided by visual cues, and has a way of zero-ing in on what it wants to ear, but the mike is dumb and visually blind and just captures the messy soup of sound.
|
carey1110,
Agree totally. Just a few years ago at a NY show, I heard Robyatt's Quad 57's. These Quads still have THE best midrange purity and lack of coloration of anything I have heard. The HF are rolled off compared to the Maggie ribbon tweeter, or my Audiostatic 240. I have thought about getting a used pair of restored Quads from Wayne Picquet's Quads Unlimited. I could use my Enigmacoustics Sopranino tweeter on top. The main problem is that these Quads are not protected from excessive power, so they are readily damaged.
Subsequent Quads like the 63, 788, 789 and later models are far inferior to the original 57. They are very veiled, although they are smooth. Big deal--who cares about smooth veils? Many conventional box speakers are superior to these Quads for clarity.
I have a concept for the ideal electrostatic design. Instead of convex curvature toward the listener, make it concave in both vertical and horizontal dimensions. (I like the vertical concave time aligned design of the Wilson Chronosonic for this reason.) If you want to sit 8 feet away, imagine a sphere with a radius of 8 feet. Cut a frame from this sphere, like a round melon slice, maybe 2 feet wide and 6 feet tall. In this way, all parts of the panel radiate equidistantly directly to the listener with perfect time alignment--no toe in required! There are 2 problems with my concept. First, the listener's head is really stuck in a vise with no tolerance for error if you want the best possible sound. Second, if you want to sit 10 feet away, or some other distance, there would need to be a multiple hinge system that would decrease the curvature for a 10 foot radius compared to 8, etc. Take the Sound Lab small cells and curve them concave in a hinge that is adjustable. My Audiostatics have some features of this design. The 2 identical panels are hinged, so you can aim each straight panel to your head. I tried this, and was able to get more bass and output, but there was a sacrifice in precise imaging and purity, so I listen to only 1 panel which is full range but rolled off in bass. I opt for midrange/HF purity at the expense of bass, which suits most music I like.
|
klh007,
Yes, I have followed the work of Roger Sanders. Initially, he designed curved stat panels, but then realized that flat panels are better, so his designs have been flat for many years. He has an informative white paper on this subject. I heard a model 10 years ago in a home. I was impressed, but it wasn't quite as good as my Audiostatic 240. Certainly he has done a great job with the dynamic woofer and its own amp. Further back, I thought his Innersound flat panels were relatively mediocre. More recently, at a NY show, a model was in a tiny room and it was mediocre, possibly because of the room. I was disappointed.
|
WC,
I see your points. But one thing about "pure", natural and smooth speakers like the 20.7 is that there is less irritation from irregularities in the sound, so all cables and amps with enough power can be enjoyed on the 20.7. Although you have demonstrated that the 20.7 and the comparable 3.7i sound better with better electronics and cables, the 20.7 may not be as critical as the Alexia 2. That doesn't mean the 20.7 has less resolution than the Alexia 2--it just means that the 20.7 is enjoyable with more ancillary components than the Alexia 2. To Magnepan's credit, they don't recommend any particular amp to go with their top speakers, and say that their many owners are happy with amps at all levels of price and quality.
Flawed analogy again--a beautiful woman will look that way no matter whether she wears rags or elegant outfits.
|
thezaks,
Technically you are right. I could say, "I suggest,,,," At the other extreme, I didn't say, "You should... or "You must..." So I left it in the middle, "Move the speaker, etc." In manuals, the instructions are neutrally written, like "connect..." or "rotate..." It is understood that they are not commandments. Sometimes they say, "Please.." but they don't start every sentence with "please," because it would get cumbersome.
|
Jay,
I just watched your part 2 interview with Mikey, 12/16. You say it best right at the end--smooth, warm amps (his choices) are jack of all trades, master of none. As an aside, most fine things in the real world are best enjoyed in small doses, with plenty of opportunities to go back for more. Example--I used to eat an entire pint of decent ice cream in 1 sitting. I gained weight, and realized after the first few mouthfuls that my taste buds were getting saturated, so the remaining mouthfuls were nothing but guilt and harm done. But now I enjoy my select favorite pint, in at least 4 different sessions. I savor each small portion, which is more enjoyable than the whole pint of the other relatively mediocre ice cream. Some gluttons even go through a half gallon in 1 sitting.
I approach music in the new way of enjoying ice cream. Full savory tasting is like getting the full, intense power of the music. If the music is loud and exciting, just a few minutes is enough intense enjoyment. If the music is soft and subtle, I can't concentrate fully for more than a few minutes for that. So forgiving components, while they permit longer listening, are total failures at providing maximum appreciation of any type of music, but accurate/revealing components deliver everything. Modest SPL's permit longer maximum enjoyment, and loud SPL's are great for the short intense bursts. When I had warm components on trial, even loud SPL's could not reveal the full musical information and were the equivalent of large portions of unsatisfying ice cream.
You can maximally enjoy ALL of your music in this way, but it appears that you are getting bored with Mike's way.
|
kren0006,
I am delighted to say that I agree with everything you just said about the 20.7 vs 13A. It is interesting that since you love deep bass a lot more than I do, we both came to the same conclusion that the bass in the 13A without room correction was overblown and out of control. You favor quality bass over quantity of bass, and I totally agree with that. I am looking forward to the room correction for the 13A, and I suspect that will make it a nice sounding speaker in the entire range.
Actually I love natural live, unamplified bass such as the string bass. It has fundamentals down to about 30 Hz, and a skilled player can bring out harmonics as high as about 10 kHz. The bow scraping and plucking of the strings produce the high harmonics. Although my electrostatic panels produce little bass below 60 Hz, my speaker's accurate reproduction of harmonics in the mid and upper bass and higher freq produce a very convincing likeness of the whole instrument. My mind can fill in the missing deep bass, so I don't need to shake the walls to get bass satisfaction.
|
grey9hound,
My experience has confirmed what you say about the naturalness of some tube equipment. In the early 80's, I tried an ARC SP6B preamp. It had an openness that was superior to the SS preamp I had then. The HF were slightly rolled off, but I enjoyed the ARC overall. Later, I tried the Theta preamp, which was better in every way than my SS preamp. With top Roger Modjeski tubes it was better still, although I noted how the midrange became cooler. But when I got the SS Spectral DMC 10 gamma preamp, it was better in every way than the Theta. By this time, SS was improving so that it became natural.
I wonder what SS pieces you compared against your tube pieces. For what may be the ultimate tube amp, Mike Fremer wrote about the VAC 452 iQ in the May 2020 Stereophile. He found it superior in almost every way to his reference SS amps, except for a little politeness and lessening of bass slam, and a slight smoothing over of fine low level detail associated with less "pop." Fremer has Wilson Alexx speakers, and I imagine WC may consider the $150K monos or the $75K stereo to be his most enjoyable amp if he tries it against the Mephisto. |
Excellent, and thanks for returning. No doubt the room correction will improve the 13A a lot. Just don't take it too literally according to some algorithm which is often too objective. What is correct according to measurements is often not what sounds best to you. For example, you might like the bass volume setting at 4 or 5, and I might like it at 2 or 3. Yeah, I know I have my bias against bass, because often it muddies the higher freq, which is what the voice sounded like on the 13A with the setting of 6, in the opening of Q&A/Fink. But when I turn my bass down with my EQ, I do get the increase in clarity in the higher freq, mainly because these are emphasized relative to the bass. The art is to do it judiciously, not too much so you are missing the melody of the bass. Another way to look at this is that suppose the 13A bass drivers and cabinet will never be of the quality of the Alexia 2. I might still want to avoid the lesser quality of the bass of the 13A and use the setting of 2, whereas with the Alexia 2 enjoy the superior bass quality and get the quantity of bass equivalent to the setting of 4 on the 13A.
There is actually not one correct tonal balance. It all depends on the room. Even for live music, a large piano sounds heavy like an elephant in a smaller room, so a smaller piano is a better match. But the large piano is more appropriate for a large stage in a concert hall. Ultimately your ear determines what is best for you in your own room.
|
kren0006,
Well, you are toning down your insults about viewpoints that differ from your own. You used to use words like "we don't need your crap" but now you say, "that really should hopefully quiet some of the BLABBERING WISDOM (my capitalizing) often spouted in these pages on the thread." It is still best to say that you disagree, and explain why, in a dignified manner. Techno just made a good post which is factual in nature.
WC was about to stop posting here because he was tired of the negativity. Even slight negativity often leads to a chain reaction of escalating negativity as people react to it. Please say what you want without negativity. You will get the respect you deserve, and maintain the high level of conversation of this thread. Thank you.
|
There is at least one unaddressed factor to consider, on the subject of direct vs added active preamp. I can't figure out from the DCS site whether there is an option for a direct output without going through additional analog circuitry for gain as well as the volume control function. I think I recall the Esoteric Dac just had a fixed output which required a separate preamp to at least set the volume control, with additional gain as needed. As a purist strategy of minimizing the number of circuits in the chain, this is the way to go. Too bad the DCS seems to have the best D/A conversion technology, and my guess (correct me if I am mistaken on this) is that connecting the DCS Rossini directly to the power amp requires the use of the preamp and volume control circuits included with the DCS. Since DCS technology is about the D/A conversion, and the additional gain is just provided as a convenience, I have no doubt that another dedicated preamp gain stage + volume control could be superior to the gain stage and volume control of the DCS. But if the DCS could do the SOTA D/A conversion without the additional circuitry for gain, and then use a separate SOTA line stage for gain, that would be the SOTA way to go.
So if my guess about the current configuration of the DCS is correct, then the discussion revolves around the sonic benefits and drawbacks of using an additional preamp. This is the equivalent of using 2 tandem preamps in the system--that of the DCS plus that of the additional preamp. This discussion is not just restricted to DAC's, but it involves other applications, such as using an FM tuner which has its own volume control. The FM tuner could be used directly into the power amp, if there was enough gain, or used with an additional preamp to get more gain which is like using 2 preamps in tandem. In another application with my turntable/phono cartridge, before I got my EQ which had a volume control, I had the life changing discovery that using my fixed gain phono stage direct into the power amp got rid of veils and provided much more transparency and musical information than using an extra line stage. It just so happened that with many recordings, by accident the phono stage gain alone produced the volume I wanted. Other recordings required more gain, so I tried a few line stages. I enjoyed the ability to play at higher volumes, but for other music, adjusting the volume of the line stage to unity gain, I disliked the veiling and loss of information from the added line stage.
Rather than claiming the increased clarity/transparency by omitting the added line stage is a myth, it is more truthful to say that if someone likes more fullness and less in-your-face brightness, then the best choice is to go for the added preamp. However, if someone like me values clarity/detail, the added preamp is a disadvantage. This is true at all price levels. Although I was impressed that the Merrill Christine adds less veiling than the ARC ref 6se, it is still not quite as transparent as omitting it. The videos showed all this.
Lastly, this thread is about one expert's (WC) personal preferences, WC welcomes different opinions and encourages all input, presented respectfully. I am sure some of his clients have my preferences, so he can tailor his advice to their preferences, and others have preferences that are more in line with most members of this thread. All this helps his appeal to a wider audience, which I hope helps his consulting business as a whole.
|
mahgister,
I liked both Szigeti and Heifetz for their respective artistry. But each were well trained masters with excellent, accurate technique in the service of their message about what the music meant to them. I studied violin with later masters and have spoken to many great musicians who studied with these masters. But these masters did not reveal their inspirational secrets to us students, but stressed that clarity and precision in technique were necessary for full realization of our musical messages. They spent most of their time as teachers on clarity/precision, and only after these basics were evident in the students, they discussed artistic expression.
If one believes that the purpose of great hifi is just that--high fidelity to the recording, then the system must have accuracy and maximum revelation of the detail in the music. The music is the artistic message, not the system. Jay also mentions early in the latest video that the best amp must have speed, resolution. These are among the ways of describing clarity.
|
carey1110--We are saying the same things about DCS direct vs with a preamp added. But I am still not clear about whether the DCS can be used with only its volume control but without its own preamp gain stage.
WC--Now that you have done a good job with the 13A and the bass now in balance with the panels, I still hear a loss of clarity in the opening voice of Q&A-Fink compared to the 20.7. The male voice has fundamentals in the 140-300 Hz range, but the overall tone depends on the midrange and HF overtones. Here is where the 20.7 excels. Again, the problem is with the convex curved panels of the 13A which roll off midrange and especially HF info. Carey1110 has confirmed my findings in his experience with straight vs curved panels.
The 20.7 and Alexia 2 are still your references. Since the 13A is played with the top Mephisto and cables, I don't expect it to have a chance with other components.
|
WC,
You certainly have fixed the bass problem on the previous video of the 13A. My point in discussing the comparison on the song, Q&A-Fink is that what is still inferior to the 20.7 is midrange/HF overtones which render the male voice overall colored vs on the 20.7. This voice is played at a low/moderate SPL level where the DCS direct shouldn't have a handicap. For this song, and similar non demanding music at moderate SPL's, the problem is the speaker, not the lack of an added preamp. I'm sure the 13A will have more fullness and dynamics when an active preamp is added. You can try both the 20.7 and 13A with an active preamp, but I predict that the speaker differences on this simple song will still be similar. For more dynamic music, probably the same as well--the curved panel of the 13A is more colored and less transparent than the 20.7. |
carey1110,
Good one of yours. I wear prescription glasses, so yours is a good description of what I am doing. A high % of people wear prescription lens or glasses. I just feel that nearly everyone could use audio prescription lens to improve their audio clarity even more. |
kren0006,
+1 on your last post.
|
WC,
I recommend you keep the 20.7 as an example of excellence for planar/ribbon technology, and of course enjoy the Alexia 2 as a great example of conventional driver box technology. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. As you noted, you prefer one for some music, and the other for other music.
The 13A doesn't compete for any music. Its woofer is inferior to the Alexia 2, and its stat panel is inferior to the midrange and HF of either the 20.7 or Alexia 2.
|
carey1110,
Emotional connections mean different things to different people. For me, the emotional connection to the music I enjoy means hearing every detail of the piece as well as the musician's artistry. You know that classical music is so complex, and when you look at the printed musical score, you understand that so much is missing from recordings of that piece, and even from live performances of the piece. Therefore, when I do anything to try to reveal more of the music, I am happier.
Another issue is that there is a difference between electronic coloring from introducing a preamp, and the natural colors of live unamplified instruments. Take the sax I recently heard live. There was a little bit of warmth to the tone, but that was really the natural smoothness of the sax. When coupled with the extraordinary level of detail and lack of electronic and speaker overlays of distortion, that "warmth" (bad word) was beautiful. Now think of a speaker playing a recording of the sax, with "warm" euphonic electronics. The "warmth" amounts to mere veiling and dullness. When selectively reducing HF, warmth is produced. I don't like this type of "warmth" but I do appreciate the "warmth" (excuse me, bad word again) and much greater detailed variety of tone colors of the natural instrument.
Analogy again--rose colored sunglasses. The overall view of a blue sky and sunny day is beautiful through the sunglasses. The sky is more beautiful, with a warmer hue of blue. However, look at the green trees, and their "green-ness" is washed out. If you want to look at the complete variety of colors in nature, and the sun is not in your face, get rid of the sunglasses. I think of the sunglasses as the negative factor that reduces the variety and natural quality of colors in nature. Sunglasses = preamp. |
kps25sc,
Good post of yours on the apparent paradox of why I use the Rane EQ when I want to eliminate as much electronics as possible. It is likely that SOTA line stages are more transparent than the Rane line stage circuit. That is without the EQ. The reason I use the EQ is that there are so many deficiencies of speakers and recordings compared to live music. If you have enough exposure to unamplified music, especially classical, you realize that nearly all recordings and speakers are dull/veiled compared to the real thing. And many recordings present a more distant perspective than what I want--the close view of being in the 1st row, or even better, on stage with the musicians. I boost HF to restore most of the bite, sparkle and snap of real instruments which are drastically diminished on all un-EQ'd systems I have heard. It is true that my use of the EQ amounts to "coloring" that I seek. But this "coloring" is necessary because otherwise the system is not worth listening to seriously for sound enjoyment, but merely for casual musical enjoyment. When most people here use a preamp, they are taking away some of the bite and snap, but my coloring with the EQ does the opposite--adding back some bite and snap. Admittedly it is not perfectly natural, but goes a long way.
Another way to conceive my approach, is that without EQ and without the Rane, I would take 2 steps forward in transparency. But since recordings and my speakers are 50 steps behind the sound of real unamplified music, the EQ effect gives me perhaps 35 steps forward. Subtract 2 steps for the veiling of the Rane circuits, and I move forward 33 steps. If I had a SOTA volume control without a line stage circuit but with the flexibility of a dedicated EQ (unfortunately the EQ in the Dag preamp provides much less flexibility), that would be a good move for me, so instead of losing 2 steps with the Rane, I would be losing only 1 step, and be ahead 34 steps instead of 33.
|
Also, the new preamp may be more detailed than the Pandora, and the risk is that with the Alexia 2 you might not like it so much. Then you will downgrade the cables in favor of more euphonic ones. But with the more natural (to me) and more revealing upper mids and HF of the ribbon tweeter of the 20.7, you might appreciate the detail of the new preamp, and welcome more revealing cables like the Nordost or whatever else is coming. No compromises needed. No flawed mixing and matching in the name of synergy. Even if you think you find synergy now, it may not work out later as you introduce new components where you have to almost re-do the entire system to achieve the new synergy. As I said before, I never have to worry about synergy, because I always go for detail and transparency. If a new component comes up for trial, if it doesn't increase clarity, I am not interested. |
WC,
All analogies are flawed, because they are merely analogies. Music and sound appreciation has little to do with cars. If you had more exposure to live unamplified music, you would better understand what I am saying. If you knew more about classical music and its complexity, that would help also. Guido Corona and almarg (sadly deceased) have also assisted in listing some classical music pieces you would enjoy.
|
Clarity encompasses what you describe as speed, resolution, sense of space, air, soundstage width/depth, 3d imaging. However, often soundstage depth is greater with warm, euphonic components, because everything is pushed back to a greater distance. But more accurate components can display greater VARIETIES of depth, even if everything is more forward. 3D imaging is great as long as the images are not bloated/inflated. More accurate components show more focused images, which actually show more 3D because the sound space has more points of interest. This is like putting on your glasses and seeing more faint stars in the sky, compared to your decreased vision and seeing fewer stars indistinctly located.
Dynamics is a special case. Micro-dynamics are revealed better with components that go for clarity, such as properly designed stats and planar magnetic ribbons. Large scale dynamics are better in dynamic box designs, horns.
So, my top priority of clarity actually gives me most of the things you value, but not all, such as large scale dynamics and bass slam.
|
WC,
Technically, you are correct, because I have not done what you have, in using SOTA line stages. But my post yesterday makes my point that for other applications like FM tuners and turntable/cartridge systems, whatever preamp I used caused deterioration in clarity. I did mention that the Christine altered the sound very little, compared to the DCS direct, but I think I would have come to the same conclusions using the Christine as well as my probably inferior preamp I had at the time. The veiling of the Christine is small, and likely much less than the veiling of the line stages I used in my tests. |
kren0006,
You have reasonable challenges to my "pronouncements." A few points can be discussed to see whether your challenges have merit. First, the role of theory and principles. Second, and more mundane, do expensive preamps change the findings that DAC direct reveals more music than adding a preamp?
The second is easier. I didn't yet listen to the latest video with the Christine preamp, but I compared the recent videos with and without the Christine. It certainly is a great preamp, by my definition of "great" because it is very transparent and alters the signal little. But it was still slightly inferior in clarity to going direct. I would expect my cheap Rane without its EQ engaged to be inferior in clarity to the Christine. So my point is that regardless of expense, a preamp will alter the sound to a greater or lesser degree, so going direct will be best for purity and clarity in nearly all cases. The only way I would be incorrect on this, would be if there is a quirky impedance mismatch by going direct, and a better impedance match by using a preamp as an intermediary. This is like making a ramp for an elderly person who can't get up stairs. For the fit young people, the ramp slows them down, but for handicapped persons, the stairs are a non-starter and the ramp is the only way to get around.
On to the tougher question about the role of theory and principles. A scientist uses inductive reasoning to first make observations, in this case, intelligent listening to a variety of live and recorded music, speakers, electronics, cables. I have done all of this. Then the scientist realizes that all his listening generates common conclusions, and he forms a theory. The theory can be used to predict observations about equipment he has never heard and compared in his familiar reference system. Nobody can hear everything, so the theory is useful to narrow down the fruitful possibilities of equipment to audition properly. After the theory has been confirmed with even more listening, it is ready to be promoted to the level of principle.
Coming down to earth, I found it interesting to compare the 13A and the 20.7. One of my theories is that electrostatic transducers are more accurate than planar magnetic ribbon transducers, because of the construction and tighter control of the diaphragm by the electrostatic field. Another of my theories is that convex curved electrostatic panels are inferior to straight panels. Then how could I predict whether the 20.7 would be better than the 13A, or the opposite? One theory predicted that the 20.7 is better, but the other theory predicted that the 13A is better. To find out the truth, WE DO THE LISTENING. We both agree that the 20.7 is our preference over the 13A, and we both agree that listening is the final arbiter. I just find it helpful to formulate theories based on listening experience, to help understand the observed differences.
In case you still object to this whole post by saying that I emphasize clarity to the exclusion of everything else, I wrote this AM that clarity encompasses most of the things that WC values, with the exception of macrodynamics and bass slam. So I still say that if macrodynamics and bass slam are very important to someone, they would lean towards having an additional preamp circuit in the chain. If the preamp were super transparent so that the extra gain comes in handy, then even I might want to have that super preamp around for very dynamic music, mainly if the power amp had very low gain. But for most music I listen to, I would take out that preamp in order to gain the greatest amount of clarity. |
WC,
I'll tell you about my experiences with headache patients in relation to EMF and assorted electrical exposures when I have time.
Although you no longer have the 3.7i, you know that I preferred an earlier model 3 to the early 20.1 for its lighter tonal balance with more HF but less bass. If a client on a very limited budget has my tastes, you could advise them to build a great system around the 3.7i.
|
WC,
I think your ophthalmologist is right about the blue filters in the prescription glasses, and the fact that the elevated eye pressure may be a factor. I could mention other causes of headaches, dizziness, nausea, but the most important thing to do is to get a thorough medical checkup from an internist. Also, see a neurologist (headache specialist) and get an MRI of the brain, just to rule out serious things.
In the 1940ish movie, DARK VICTORY, Bette Davis plays a commanding socialite who develops headaches. One of her admirers who falls in love with her, is a neurosurgeon. He observes her seemingly casually, but notes that she misses lighting her cigarette. With this evidence of spatial disorientation, he diagnoses her with a brain tumor on the spot, operates on her the next day, and is proven correct. A few years ago, one of my patients told me he was bumping into things on his right side. I found that he indeed had right visual field defects, and I diagnosed him with a brain tumor on his left side, confirmed with the MRI. He survived with conventional treatment for 6 years, but he refused my advice to go on a keto (very low carb) diet, which research has shown to extend survival in brain cancer patients.
Doctors used to be trained to make diagnoses of nearly everything by taking a history and doing a physical exam, before any tests are done. That was when CT scans and MRI exams were unavailable. Nowadays, this art of diagnosis has been largely lost, and more reliance has been placed on doing tests. Still, my neurologist colleague and I order MRI tests of the brain on nearly all headache patients, because the traditional art of diagnosis doesn't pick up everything. Please insist on getting an MRI, and don't let the MD shrug you off by prescribing pain drugs for your headaches.
You probably don't have any serious condition like this, so I'll get into some interesting causes of headaches I have seen in patients. LED lights are an example of electro-sensitivity which is a problem for a % of the population. It can cause insomnia (my case) or other brain symptoms. I bought products and fabrics to make shielding for 4G and maybe 5G, from lessEMF.com. Your wife could help you with the sewing. I have some products from Airestech which partially neutralize the effects of environmental EMF on the body. I carry the Defender Pro in my shirt pocket all day, and in my underwear when sleeping. I bought the esi24 meter from lessEMF, which measures RF, magnetic and electrical fields. I have had modest improvements with these strategies, but the 45 year old wife of the super in my building had more dramatic results. She had severe insomnia. I measured all the rooms in her apartment. The RF levels at the head of her bed were off the roof, but they were lower at the foot of the bed in the middle of the room. The 1st step was putting her head where her feet were. This alone gave an improvement. Then when she went into the other room where RF levels were much lower, she then began to sleep like a baby. I'm not kidding.
I use orange goggles that fit over my glasses in the evening to filter out 98% of the blue light which suppresses melatonin, the sleep hormone. Get the Uvex S 0360 X Ultraspec 2000 model from Amazon. This model still transmits 50% of the total light, so you can do your activities. Melatonin declines with aging, but young people who use bright screens from phones and computers at night can have melatonin suppression. Melatonin suppression also occurs with stress, so it is important to manage that, so I hate to say it, but try to avoid doing audio research at night. If you must do it, use the orange goggles, which you can also use for listening with also the lights turned down. All this will help restore your melatonin levels. Even if you sleep like a baby for 8 hours, the odds are that your sleep quality is not as good as you think. Many people like me are actually handicapped in sleep quality and quantity, but rationalize that they are OK by getting involved in pleasurable activities like audio or anything else, to take their mind away from the true realities. Melatonin deficiency can increase the risk of many conditions, so your blue filter glasses and my orange goggles are a good strategy.
If the neurologist diagnoses migraines as a cause of headaches, they generally prescribe specific migraine drugs and avoidance of trigger factors like stress and foods. I go further, and start by recommending a gluten and dairy free diet. These are the most common foods that cause food sensitivity. If you have abdominal symptoms after eating moderate sized meals, that often indicates food sensitivities, which cause what is commonly known as IBS, irritable bowel syndrome. The IBS leads to "leaky gut" which opens up the Pandora's box of overall body inflammation, such as migraine headaches as an example. (There we go again, Mephisto and Pandora, lol.) Even if you don't have any abdominal symptoms, it is worth a month trial of avoidance of gluten and dairy, which has helped many of my patients with neurological symptoms of headache, dizziness, etc.
I hope you and some other people find this info helpful. |
speedbump6,
I actually agree with everything you just said. I would love to compare different EQ products, because their electronics would yield different sounds. But the choice of high quality products is limited. I'd love to see someone like Merrill come up with a purist line stage with limited gain, a SOTA volume control, and top grade EQ parts. I am not claiming my Rane ME60 is the best such product--I merely tried it because I was desperate to add EQ when the conductor of my orchestra complained that my recordings in the lousy hall sounded dull and bass heavy. I agreed with him and was unhappy. That was back in 1995, and I came to enjoy the EQ for audiophile listening purposes. I lean away from the tubed EQ units of Manley, but I would welcome other units you may have heard that have the transparency I seek.
There are actually 2 subjects here. One--purity with lack of coloration, and transparency. Two--the role of EQ to bring out HF which brings out more details of higher freq harmonic overtones. On the 1st subject, it is remarkable that the cheap Rane especially with mrdecibel's tweaks is decently transparent as just a line stage without its EQ, although no doubt the Merrill Christine and other SOTA line stages are better for purity/transparency. On the 2nd subject, the EQ with HF judiciously boosted enables more snap and sparkle so that speakers come much closer to those qualities of live music. I have some cherished musical performances on recordings where the mikes are relatively distant and electronics are sweet and tubey sounding, so I get the midrange a little drier and more neutral by slightly reducing the range of 200-800 Hz. Also, don't forget that mikes are transducers with their own electronics embedded, so they are in effect EQ's. That's a big reason why mikes have different sounds which may vary as much as speakers.
So as I explained in a recent post, the slight handicap of the Rane for purity is vastly outweighed by its EQ ability to make recordings and speakers much more lively so that the overall sound is much closer to the gestalt of live unamplified music. Sounds contradictory, and few audiophiles believe this, but my listening experience has taught me all these things.
Slightly another topic, but I wonder whether the single tweeter array of the cheaper Tektons has more HF emphasis than the double array used in more expensive Tektons. In the single array, there are 6 tweeters that cover the midrange, and 1 tweeter that covers above 3 kHz. In the double array, there is the 1 tweeter for above 3 kHz, and 14 tweeters that cover the midrange, so perhaps there is more relative midrange output from the double array. Eric Alexander would know, but I don't want to bother him since I am not ready to buy Tektons at this time.
|
shannere,
Great question. I would love to A/B the Mephisto against my little Bryston 2.5B SST2. Both seem to be "wild animals." On efficient speakers, WC would have all the power he needs from the Bryston and would consider it a wild ride. I am not a wild guy because I drive my 2010 Toyata Prius conservatively and get 58.4 MPG whereas many Prius drivers are more aggressive and only get MPG in the 40's. But my wildness is fulfilled by going for brilliant HF oriented sparkly sound. My Mytek Brooklyn Amp+ is a little euphonic compared to my Bryston, but it has a basically neutral sound. The Mytek is cooler in tonality and leaner than the Merrill 114 I had on trial. The Bryston is my choice for small scale chamber music and classical music earlier than 1850 which doesn't have any cymbal crashes or blasting trumpets. But I need more power for the big pieces. The Mytek is my choice for that. In a way, I'll say that the Bryston is like the ruthless raw excitement of no preamp, and the Mytek is like a great preamp added for more dynamics and fullness. The Mytek is still what most people here would consider ruthless, in comparison to Merrill, Dag, Pass, Luxman, maybe Simaudio. Of course, this is only speculation on my part, utilizing only WC's comments, although I can say that about the Merrill based on my own listening. I haven't heard the others, but based on WC's descriptions, I think I have it right.
|
carey1110,
The question is "what is live?" Some people prefer to sit in the middle to get that laid back sound. Others prefer to sit closer. Both are different versions of live. This is OK, but my objections revolve around writers who sit in the middle, 50 feet away, go back home and listen to their recordings of the same piece, and then say their systems are too bright and upfront. They don't realize that the recordings are made with much closer mikes than the listener 50 feet away. There are variations in the use of more distant mikes to mix in some distant ambience in some recordings, or the very close stage perspective of other recordings. But in general, the recordings have a much closer perspective than 50 feet away. Such a writer should sit in the front row, listen and then go back home to compare, and then figure out the adjustments of his system to get a true facsimile of live from his system, according to what the recording presents. |
WC,
That is truly interesting what you found comparing the 2 projectors. I am not familiar with video equipment. My one fascinating experience in this area was at conferences where I was close enough to see the live speaker, and compare to the projected image. I assume those projectors are decent quality, but maybe not as good as what you have. I enjoyed the much greater detail and features of the live person. The video was smoothed over. The woman had smoothed over features on the video, but in person she was more attractive if not so perfect. That's another example of how live rawness is better than reproduced smoothness, whether in sound or visuals. A few years ago, I watched the old Art Garfunkel (of Simon & Garfunkel, very popular before your time) being interviewed by Rosanna Scotto on TV. He had seen her many times on TV, but when seeing her live a few feet away, he exclaimed that she was really beautiful. I don't think he was buttering her up for hosting him. I have had similar reactions to seeing beautiful women close up live, and then seeing good pictures of them which were a letdown by comparison. |
WC,
We can have our requests, but of course you will bring in something when an attractive deal comes through, so you can remain financially solvent and continue your great journey.
Having said that, my top interest is the ML CLX, which to me is the most intelligent design of ML. Its midrange and HF panel is still curved, but it is the narrowest of the ML products, and it had the purest and focused mids/HF of various ML panels I heard years ago. The electrostatic flat bass panel probably provides the highest quality of bass down to 56 Hz. I could live with that loss of low bass for most of my music, but dasign suggested adding REL subs to get everything. Using the sub below 50 Hz wouldn’t pose significant integration problems with the electrostatic bass, and wouldn’t color the midrange the way the 13A does.
My close next interest is Tekton. Those innovative tweeter arrays enable coverage of 270 Hz (double arrays in Ulf, Encore, Moab, Double Impact models) or about 500 Hz (single arrays in Electron, Impact Monitor and other models), up to extreme HF. The challenge will be to see if the low mass tweeter coverage of much of the midrange outperforms the more massive drivers of Wilsons and Magicos. Of course, Tektons are cheap because of direct sale, and the cabinets are probably not of the quality of Wilsons or Magicos.
The ultimate Tektons are probably with the Be tweeters, which can be used on any model if you work with the designer, Eric Alexander. They add lots of costs, to about $14K for the Be/Moab, or even $5500 for the Be/Electron. Nobody has posted anything about how they sound compared to the regular versions. And Be versions will almost never appear on the used market. If you want to see how the ultimate Be versions compare to your much more expensive Wilson or other top speakers, it might be worth taking a small loss to see if the Be versions are life changing performers at still reasonable prices, as I suspect. |
I am only raving about the theoretical concepts behind the Tekton tweeter array. We all agree that listening is the final arbiter. I mentioned 2 different theories about the respective advantages of the 20.7 and 13A. One theory won out in practice, to show how the 20.7 is superior in most sonic criteria. Will the tweeter array concept win against the probably inferior cabinet design and/or crossover design of the Tekton compared to Wilson? Only listening will tell. For now, speedbump6 is in the best position to tell us.
On to the next theory about whether an extra preamp stage is needed. I just listened to the latest video with the Christine preamp in play. Going back and forth with the song, Baby I love your way, they are very close. The earlier video without the preamp is recorded perhaps 1 notch louder than with Christine. I can't say I have matched SPL's properly, so at this time I can't say which I prefer. The brilliance is about equal on both. The Christine I found superbly transparent in earlier comparison videos, so it makes sense that I can't come to a conclusion. Sometimes I find the Christine more detailed, and other times I find direct more detailed.
But let's suppose that a certain preamp makes the sound more detailed than without the preamp, in an apparent refutation of my commandment to avoid unnecessary circuitry. How could this be? Two possibilities. One, there is a more favorable impedance match with the preamp added in. Second, the preamp may be functioning like a subtle EQ which favors HF.
I could insert my Rane EQ in WC's room, and show easily how the EQ makes the sound more brilliant than a direct connection without it. Even though the added circuitry of the EQ is certainly less transparent than the direct connection without it, the effect of judicious EQ overwhelms its slight lack of transparency. I could also show more brilliance with the Rane EQ than with the more transparent Christine but without EQ.
I could also use the EQ to make the Alexia 2 please me much more than the 20.7 (my favorite speaker on the videos) without EQ. The Alexia 2 is so good, and little behind the 20.7 for what I like, that I am certain of this, because there is much more benefit from using the EQ than switching between the 20.7 and Alexia 2. With the 13A, which I find significantly inferior to the other speakers, I am not so sure I could use the EQ to make the overall sound superior.
If anyone thinks that I am doing drastic things to create totally artificial sounds like hyped up disco recordings, I can say all it takes is relatively small boosts or dips to show what I have described. In a blindfold test, I could show most listeners that I can provide extra detail and still keep the overall sound natural. They would prefer the sound with the EQ in the system.
Also, carey1110 mentioned that people who listened to the Dag preamp with the EQ engaged preferred it to the Dag without the EQ.
|
WC,
I have stopped saying that anything is garbage, but now say that X is inferior to Y because of reasons A, B, C. X may be better than Y for other reasons D, E, F. Reviewers who do this are informative even if they have different priorities than I. It is clear that you like a fuller/more dynamic sound, so that may explain why you didn’t like the direct connection bypassing the input stage of the Constellation amp. The guy in the latest Merrill bulletin likes the 118 better than the Connie pair even with the direct connection, so he appreciates the greater accuracy of Merrill designs. However, another Connie owner may prefer the smoother, more euphonic Connie sound, and dislike the direct connection which goes for purity.
|
WC,
Right. I just added a few sentences to my last post, which is consistent with your findings. Actually, you just said that the direct connection thinned out the sound, not that it did nothing. But its big deficiency was that the volume and fullness were not sufficient for you. I have also found that going for direct connections of anything causes thinness, but I believe that thinness is associated with more accuracy, because the fuzzy quality of more full sound is lessened. In great electronics, the thinness is not drastic, but is fairly subtle. For me, I am willing to make the volume sacrifice in order to get maximum accuracy at low to moderately loud levels. Even in my direct connection system, often I find the sound blurry when the volume is too loud, so reducing it by 3 dB or so is often a lifesaver.
Excuse another perhaps flawed analogy, but the bodybuilder who loses some fat but maintains his strength will have better muscle definition and look more cut, and more likely win the competition.
|
grey9hound and jetter,
True. I can only go so far with my theories, and listening is the real test. I thought that since the single array has 1 out of 7 tweeters covering HF and the double array has 1 out of 15 tweeters covering HF, then the single array should be brighter. But maybe the output of each of the 14 midrange tweeters in the double array is halved (more precisely, reduced to 6/14 of the level) so that the midrange/HF balance is the same. A phone call to Eric Alexander the designer should answer that question. Most of the posts from owners describe the model they own without comparing models. Rarely, comparisons are made, but I have not seen models with single arrays compared with models with double arrays, for midrange/HF characteristics.
The imaging of midrange + HF music is probably smaller and more focused with the single array, because the vertical height of the single array is about 1 foot, and the height of the double array is over 2 feet, with the single HF tweeter in the middle of the double array. Some people like small focused imaging, and others like larger more diffuse imaging. For me, I would go for the single array on the Electron with Be tweeters for ultimate performance--what a deal for less than $6K. I like the smallest 4" mid bass drivers on the Electron because they are likely to have the highest speed and accuracy compared to the larger mid bass drivers of the Encore, Ulf and even Electron SE, and would have enough output for my needs. The advantage of the double array is that it goes down to 270 Hz, compared to maybe 400-500 Hz of the single array. The whole appeal of all Tekton designs is that a lot of the musical range is handled by the low mass tweeter arrays, which are more accurate than conventional larger midrange drivers. The fact that the whole freq range is said to be fast and coherent, shows the importance of accurate higher freq overtones of bass instruments. The conventional woofers in Tektons are not as fast as the tweeters, so overtone accuracy is important in overall realism of bass instruments.
|
klh007,
Maybe you can comment on my speculations about different Tekton models you have heard. I pointed out theoretical advantages of the single array, and other theoretical advantages of the double array. Are my theories correct from practical listening? If you have some closeness with Eric Alexander, perhaps he can send you models which have the Be tweeters. The last time you posted here, you had not heard the Be tweeter used in any model.
My reading of your comments suggests that you still own the Moab because you thoroughly enjoy it. In a way, you are in a similar position as Jay because you are probably offered opportunities to audition and review many great products. You can't own everything you like, for financial reasons and space limitations. |
kren0006,
I can assure you that my competence and understanding of sound in both live music and audio reproduction of it is at least as good as my competence in my medical career. You thanked me for a great post after I advised WC about his headaches and such. I don't expect you to thank me for audio information about theory and real world results, although thanks is what I really deserve. As a minimum, show the same respect that you gave me when you said my medical post was great.
Since you are back to calling what a lot of what I have to say, "drivel" you really don't deserve any further attention from me. Since I am trying to be helpful in medical and audio realms, and no longer apparently dictating to people what they should do, I don't deserve the dump job from you. If any patient used the word "drivel" to me, I would dismiss him from my practice. I will, however, answer the valid points thezaks raised about "thinness" when I have time.
Once again, you have lit the match of fiery negativity on this board. This is surprising after people appreciated my recent posts. Even shannere, who normally is critical of me, posed a reasonable question if I would like any gear that WC has owned. Because he showed genuine respect and interest, I was delighted to give him a detailed and sincere answer.
|
WC,
I second what thezaks said. Also, there are different types of audio consultants. Some advise on acoustics, home installations and the like. Others advise on preamps, amps, sources, cables in a given room. I respect them all--I consider them all to be like subspecialists. My knowledge of ophthalmology or dermatology is rudimentary, and I respect those specialists.
I eagerly await your evaluation of the Critical Mass stands. There are different philosophies of isolation and vibration control, and their effects on sonic characteristics. Heavy mass has always been considered the proper way, but in the 1970's Linn made waves by saying the opposite. They claimed their lightweight turntable sounded better on a light rack rather than a heavy rack. I had been in the heavy mass camp, so my first serious turntable was a flagship Denon direct drive turntable which was heavy. I then transferred my cartridge from the Denon table/arm system to the original belt drive Linn Sondek LP12 table/arm system. I was astounded at how much more airy and open the Linn sounded compared to the Denon. Of course, there are other factors that may have accounted for the different sounds, like arm/cartridge compatibility, etc. I didn't have a chance to A/B either the Denon or Linn system with different support furniture.
Then there was the question of direct drive vs belt drive, which I never satisfactorily answered for myself. But then I took my same arm/cartridge combo, transferred from the Linn turntable to the SOTA Sapphire (that's the brand name) turntable, also a belt drive design but with different materials and higher mass. The SOTA Sapphire
was dead and muffled compared to the Linn.
If you can do the grueling lifting to A/B the 2 stands--Critical Mass and Artesania, that would be fascinating. Since the Artesania can't support the Mephisto, you could use another amp for this comparison. But this activity of A/B'ing stands probably isn't worth the hassle, since the Mephisto is in a class by itself and it's either worth using the Critical Mass stand or not. There are always surprises in audio!
|
Right, Dave--there are so many options of using 1 or more Be tweeters. I envy the car mechanic who can try all sorts of things, and extend the life of his own car at little cost, just parts. These guys can get 500,000 miles with good maintenance.
|
grey9hound,
The double array will naturally go down to about 300 Hz, and the single array to about 600 Hz. It is all about total tweeter diaphragm area. For a given SPL, the double array has half the excursion of the single array. At 300 Hz double the excursion is required than at 600 Hz, so this is a crude explanation of the fact that the double array can extend down to half the freq. This is why the DI needs a conventional larger midrange driver from 600 down to 300. Still better than the Moab, the Encore has a relatively small driver to cover the mid bass to lower midrange, which probably results in greater transient purity than the large woofers in the Moab for this range. My fantasy is the Encore with all Be tweeters, but that gets into $15-16K. The Encore size is less imposing than the Moab.
|
